>>...In fact I read a report in the WSJ, written by 3 doctors, that
>> said that if a patient came in, exhibiting the usual symptoms, it
>> is so likely that they have h-pylori that you might as well
>> prescibe the appropriate drugs. In 12 days you will know.
>> Without testing.
Well, my wife was recently diagnosed with H. Pylori and the Priolsec and other pills retailed for around $150 (thank god we're in an HMO). Health issues aside, it makes economic sense to test first. (Of course, Astra-Merck would prefer to see them prescribe the treatment without the test, I'm sure.)
As for the question of competing with labs, that will be a problem short term. Most HMOs already have in-house labs that can test for HP. They aren't about the chuck these labs, since they obviously need them for other testing services.
Hopefully, in the future, someone will ask the question, "is it more cost effective to use quick-diagnostic tests than send samples to the lab?" The knee-jerk response might be, "we already have a lab and all of the personel, so why buy quick-diagnostics tests?" Perhaps someone will then sit down and measure the cost of two doctor visits (one to listen to the patient's problem and obtain the blood sample for the test, the other to expain the infection and write the prescription) and lab expenses against one doctor visit and the cost of the test kit. Off hand, I'd expect the latter sequence to be the most cost effective, not to mention the most convenient for the patient (let's just pretend customer satisfaction somehow became an issue with HMOs at some point in the future).
Once again, the quick diagnostics test makes the most economic sense.
By the way, I'm glad to hear the people in this thread raise these down-side issues and play the devil's advocate every so often to test our reasons for investing in this company. |
