 |
ESSAY OF THE WEEK |
|
|
|
Question
The following appeared in the news section of a local newspaper:
ABC Company has developed a CT scanning technology that makes CT scanning faster, less expensive and safer for patients. The State is limiting the use of the technology on concerns that the technology will lead to overuse and will increase the cost of health care.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Ashish: 6/11/2009 |
 |
CT scanning technology is a useful part of various health care processes. A company, ABC has developed a technology which makes process faster, less expensive and safer. This information itself is providing very important factors in decision while adopting for new technology.
The governemnt has claimed that limited use of technology will prevent overuse of technology and thus does not affect cost of health care. According to economics theories,when demand increases price decreses so overuse of technology should lead reduction in cost of healthcare. Also, according to information given about technology it is less expensive. So this argument looks incomplete as there are no supporting information provided how cost of health care is increasing with overuse of technology.
Morever, if it is assumed that cost of health will somewhat increase, other factors like fast process and safer to use has not been taken care while limiting the use of technology. These factors are not given importance over cost while these are equally important factors for decisions on public interest.
In my point of view, based on the information that technology is cheaper, there are no points provided to prove how overuse will increase the cost of health care. So, this argument looks incomplete and provide no substantial base to limit use of technology. However, with more clear information can help in such conclusion.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Shrirang: 2/1/2010 |
|
The usage of CT scan is the great concern in mind of common people in terms of accessbility and the cost requied for scanning. In mentioned assertion, ABC company has creted effective scanning machines which will definately beneficial for the society. Govenemnt panjandrums are doubious about the situation conjured after the introduction of machine in market.
In the given assertion, information related to the frequency of usage of machine and % of population using the same not mentioned causing some ambiguity in decision.
Also as the govenemnt gives some concessions, insurance the system is well stabilized for the plan of next -3 terms of govenemtn which also has not be elucidated. Amout ot tax paid, %of population using the facility both are required to decreed the situation.
Even the medical science related research on the similar symptom and suffusion of the disease with the related cause needs to be studied. If there is any kind of possiblity to lessen the cause itlself it will be more jovial to implement.
For the final decision to undertake need to understand the amount of impact in terms of % of suffering people,tax amount to be diverted, allocation of amount,ABC companies collaborations and plannings. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
Reference Essay |
|
One component of cost is the amount of time a procedure takes. The new CT scanning process takes less time. A faster procedure, therefore, should produce a lower cost. The provider can perform more scans over a given period of time, and should be able to generate more revenue based on volume. Presumably, the procedure is available to patients with private insurance as well as public insurance. In this case, the provider can transfer some of the procedure's cost to those patients who do not rely on the State's insurance.
Another component of cost is the outlay required by the provider. The new CT scanning procedure is less expensive. Lower provider outlay, therefore, should produce a lower cost per patient. If the process is faster, less expensive and safer, it is possible that more providers will enter the market. Natural market pressures should keep the cost low.
Another component of cost is the risk a producer takes to provide the service. The new CT scanning procedure is safer. A lower risk should produce a lower cost. On the other hand, a safer procedure should be more desirable to the State, as well as to the patients.
By all information given, the new procedure cannot increase the cost of health care. The State is concerned that the number of procedures will increase, thereby increasing its outlay. This concern assumes that a care provider will order the diagnostic test based upon its cost, and the lower cost of the new procedure will entice providers to order more tests. In fact, medical diagnostic tests are ordered based upon the patient's need, not upon the cost of the test. The number of patients who need the test will not increase because the cost of the diagnostic test has decreased.
Conversely, the State is not considering how the reduction in the procedure's cost will offset the cost of an increased number of procedures. The State may now offer the procedure to a larger number of patients for the given amount of money.
Looking at this another way, the State's alternative to the faster, less expensive, safer procedure is the slower, more expensive, more dangerous procedure. From a logical perspective, the State should not advocate a procedure that is slower, more expensive and more dangerous to the patient for the purpose of saving money. If the State's concern is overuse, the State should develop guidelines for the proper use of the procedure. These guidelines should discourage casual use of the technology.
Finally, the State's position on the technology opens questions about the relative worth of each patient. The State has a responsibility to provide some level of medical care to all persons in the State, provided that they are eligible for such care. Technology that reduces the cost and improves the quality of diagnosis should be encouraged. Sub-standard technology that is outmoded, expensive or dangerous should not be used when a preferable alternative is available. Regardless of the cost of care, or the number of persons eligible for coverage, the State should provide the fastest, most cost-effective, safest care possible.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
