Have any of you read the report in the title? It may make useful background reading (link below). http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh.../@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_085828.pdf 26. For insurance companies, there is no incentive to invest in the prevention of ill health as patients may move to a different scheme. Diagnostics increase the capacity of the NHS to reach out to predict and prevent ill health, but in other systems they increase their capacity to exclude those at risk from the protection they need. Does anyone have any thoughts on what the section above is referring to? Thank you for reading this far.
Thanks for pointing out this link. It certainly looks like useful background reading. If the NHS spends £1million on diagnostic care and preventative treatment then it may be possible to save £2million in the cost of treating disease in the more advanced stages. There will also be benefits to the country of a generally happier and healthier population. In contrast, when an insurer spends money on diagnostic systems it tends to do this at the underwriting stage in order to exclude or rate up the higher risks - hence the comment that many people are excluded from cover when they need it most. There is much less incentive for an insurer to spend money on diagnostic and preventative treatments for its existing policyholders. Once the insurer has spent the money then the policyholder may lapse (because they perceive less need to continue their policy) or may transfer to another insurer (as they will now be healthier and will pass the underwriting tests). Best wishes Mark Willder
