Editorial: Medicine at what price?

Saturday, June 16, 2007 | 7:38 a.m.

As state and federal lawmakers debate the accessibility and costs of medical care, some countries are putting a price tag on results, trying to determine just how much one's vision or mobility - or even life - is worth.

A story by The New York Times on Monday says that although Americans generally consider it unacceptable to calculate such values, a number of foreign nations do consider the cost-effectiveness of treatments - judged by their likely long-term outcomes - when deciding what medicines or procedures to cover.

Many Americans, if not most, believe that it just isn't right to ration or withhold medical care purely because of cost.

Of course, the reality is that such rationing does happen in the United States. Costs and the likely results of being treated or not being treated are factors for people who have no health insurance or lack the money to pay for treatment. And health insurers make such risk assessments and decisions all the time. That's why doctors often must seek approval for procedures or tests.

Economists told the Times it is not cost-effective when patients who have health insurance spend tens of thousands of dollars to extend their lives for a few weeks or months, while someone who has no insurance cannot obtain simple cholesterol-lowering drugs. Such drugs could greatly lower that person's risk of heart attack at a fraction of the cost of treating that same patient after a heart attack.

This dilemma is the elephant in the room of the U.S. health care cost debate, and it is a major reason why finding a solution that grants everyone access to health coverage is going to be difficult. Still, the United States manages to provide its residents with benefits that other nations cannot give to their people.

Maybe that's why Americans want to believe that their creativity and ingenuity will prevail when it comes to improving health care access, too.