> A few missed words which would've saved millions of dollars in prolonged admissions and diagnostic costs over the years.
I don't mean to come off antagonistic here. But surely the more important benefit is the patient who would've avoided years of sickness and repeated hospital visits?
> But surely the more important benefit is the patient who would've avoided years of sickness and repeated hospital visits?
The patient experience is always important and maybe I could've been less implicit in what I wrote. I think I was focusing more on the collective/societal impact this would have, which I felt would resonate more with the readers here.
As a patient with an under-served condition I quite often focus on the financial rather than human cost of not having a better system of care when talking about it.
If someone’s going to object to improving the system it’s mostly likely going to be on grounds of cost.
I don't know, if it was really millions of dollars for a single patient - I wouldn't pay a few million dollars to avoid a few bouts of illness for a random member of my health insurance group scheme cohort, and that seems like the correct comparison to make. Increase the costs by another order of magnitude and I'd rather let them die.
But it's "millions of dollars in prolonged admissions", not just "prolonged admissions". The point is the financial cost, not the wellness of the patient.
I don't mean to come off antagonistic here. But surely the more important benefit is the patient who would've avoided years of sickness and repeated hospital visits?