• ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    A hospital, as a business, will make more money treating cancer than it will doing a mammogram and having a computer identify issues for preventative treatment.

    I believe this idea was generally debunked a little while ago; to wit, the profit margin on cancer care just isn’t as big (you have to pay a lot of doctors) as the profit margin on mammograms. Moreover, you’re less likely to actually get paid the later you identify it (because end-of-life care costs for the deceased tend to get settled rather than being paid).

    I’ll come back and drop the article link here, if I can find it.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Oh interesting, I’d be happy to be wrong on that. :)

      I figured they’d factor the staffing costs into what they charge the insurance, so it’d be more profit due to a higher fixed costs, longer treatment and some fixed percentage profit margin.
      The estate costs thing is unfortunately an avenue I hadn’t considered. :/

      I still think it would be better if we removed the profit incentive entirely, but I’m pleased if the two interests are aligned if we have to have both.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Oh, absolutely. Absent a profit motive that pushes them toward what basically amounts to a protection scam, they’re left with good old fashioned price gouging. Even if interests are aligned, it’s still way more expensive than it should be. So yes, I agree that we should remove the profit incentive for healthcare.

        Sadly, I can’t find the article. I’ll keep an eye out for it, though. I’m pretty sure I linked to it somewhere but I’m too terminally online to figure out where.