-
-
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA Well probably not if the procedures are ineffective, hence the review.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA In theory? Perhaps. In practice PHI is more of a political golf ball. Everyone wants a hit but v. little progress made.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA Yes. But that is not how it has worked out; costs have increased with little benefit https://theconversation.com/should-taxpayers-subsidise-extras-for-private-health-insurance-holders-39504 …6 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA 4) Again if ineffective treatments are funded it will likely drive up the costs over the whole system long-term.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pharmerfour
@pharmerfour@theMJA V. difficult Q for me, because there are other, non-financial costs to allowing junk healthcare to be publicly funded.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@pharmerfour @theMJA But if it reduced financial costs, that might be incentive enough to allow these harms. I don't have a perfect answer.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.