Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Any healthcare system has to do a "cost/benefit analysis" of treatments. If spending $10,000 a day would keep someone alive, but they would die anyway after a month, I suspect that not many insurance schemes would consider that an effective use of their clients' money. Treatments that merely "extend" life rather than provide a "cure" for a condition are especially hard to justify financially.
|
Would a patient in this hypothetical situation in the UK receive the care at the cost of $10K a day? It's not "life SAVING", but clearly a decision has to be made quickly or the care will be too late to even prolong life for that month.
I think in the US (and I may be wrong, but....) most health insurance would pay for this assuming we're talking about accepted, non-experimental treatments. An insurance company tends not to question the necessity case-by-case, they decide whether particular procedures are covered on a more general basis. An HMO on the other hand, would probably opt not to provide this type of expensive care with no hope of a life-saving outcome.