My reaction to this study: So what? Resources are finite everywhere, and contrary to what seems to be popular belief, healthcare should be no exception. If spending drastically more leads to slightly better outcomes then it's not worth it. In almost all areas except healthcare spending for the rich and well-insured, we accept this fact. We send our kids to schools with larger than optimal classes because schools operate on finite resources. We don't have caviar and top-notch wine for dinner every night because our dining budget is limited. We don't spend all day lounging around because leisure time has an opportunity cost. It's time to accept the idea of limited resources in healthcare just like everywhere else in life.
Well David, when you have an acute myocardial infarction, I'll give you two aspirin and send you home instead of doing an angiogram...
Send your kids to a below par public school (I went to one), and eat microwaveable dinners (at the expense of your heart), but when it comes time to treat your ailments, shell out. You can buy a fancy car, you can spend your savings on a nice house, or you can use that money to pay for the only thing that really matters in the long run: your own body.
Sort out your priorities. We're talking about human life here. Saving 32,000 peoples' lives is not a "slightly better outcome." Sometimes spending the extra money is worth it.
If there is a causal relationship between higher spending and better patient outcomes then it is certainly worth figuring out why that happens. If the mechanism can be identified, it may well turn out that there is a way to shift practices and improve outcomes without the added cost.
My reaction to this study: So what? Resources are finite everywhere, and contrary to what seems to be popular belief, healthcare should be no exception. If spending drastically more leads to slightly better outcomes then it's not worth it. In almost all areas except healthcare spending for the rich and well-insured, we accept this fact. We send our kids to schools with larger than optimal classes because schools operate on finite resources. We don't have caviar and top-notch wine for dinner every night because our dining budget is limited. We don't spend all day lounging around because leisure time has an opportunity cost. It's time to accept the idea of limited resources in healthcare just like everywhere else in life.
Well David, when you have an acute myocardial infarction, I'll give you two aspirin and send you home instead of doing an angiogram...
Send your kids to a below par public school (I went to one), and eat microwaveable dinners (at the expense of your heart), but when it comes time to treat your ailments, shell out. You can buy a fancy car, you can spend your savings on a nice house, or you can use that money to pay for the only thing that really matters in the long run: your own body.
Sort out your priorities. We're talking about human life here. Saving 32,000 peoples' lives is not a "slightly better outcome." Sometimes spending the extra money is worth it.
If there is a causal relationship between higher spending and better patient outcomes then it is certainly worth figuring out why that happens. If the mechanism can be identified, it may well turn out that there is a way to shift practices and improve outcomes without the added cost.
Drilling into the data to evaluate the effect of nurse to patient ratio would be a good place to start.