Dispute widens on merits of health tests

The Boston Globe reports:

One of President Obama’s favorite arguments for his health care overhaul plan is that he would require insurance companies to pay for tests and other preventive care that can determine whether a person has a life-threatening disease. “It saves lives, it also saves money,’’ he said at his town hall meeting last week in New Hampshire.

But things are not that simple. While cholesterol tests, cancer screenings, and other preventive measures can save lives, there is strong disagreement about whether they really reduce health care spending, because the tests themselves are costly and often lead to more doctor’s visits and procedures. And now, that longstanding medical debate has become a big political sticking point.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that estimates the cost of legislation, said this month that expanding the use of preventive measures and screening tests would actually lead to “higher, not lower, medical spending overall’’ - a finding that gives Republicans ammunition to oppose the president’s proposal.

Moreover, the CBO suggested that if the tests do save lives, that could also cost the government more in other areas, by extending lives and increasing the time elderly Americans rely on Social Security and federal Medicare insurance.

An article well worth your time.