• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The savings from not having to pay treatment costs for as many arthritis, heart disease, stroke, fatty liver, and diabetes cases should balance the costs.

    Also most insurance companies refuse to cover semaglutide, so I don’t see this bankrupting anyone but the patients who pay out of pocket.

    • MaineDPC@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s a bold assumption. While prevention may be the right thing to do for patients’ sake, it rarely saves money. Last time I checked, very few preventive measures save money except for vaccines in children and young adults. Often, if we live longer , we develop more expensive long term diseases.

      • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        When was the last time you checked? And where? And how deep in the sand was your head when you did so?

        • MaineDPC@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Within the last year. This is what I do for a living, I advise patients on preventive care every day. What’s in their interest differs from what saves money for the whole population though.
          You seem pretty sure I’m wrong based on your insult, where did you find evidence that it saves money?