Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
Ideally medication would solve that, but not always. I don't know how reasonable the numbers are, but my mom has HBP, the only thing that has actually lowered her BP was a low-carb diet. She's tried everything, but staying low carb dropped her weight, her BP and her cholesterol and has kept it there. Someone who is trying to figure out WHY their numbers are high and a successful treatment hasn't been found for that individual yet is going to be rather unfairly punished. So would someone who is an outlier and is incredibly healthy despite not falling in those ranges.
|
Yes, but it is in the best interest of the patient and definitely in the best interest of cost containment (the only interest of the health insurance company) to control these variables which are all markers of future complications. HBP, Diabetes, cigarette smoking and cholesterol are all risk factors for heart disease, stroke, renal disease, peripheral artery disease, which are the biggest preventable costs in health care. Cancer, genetic diseases, auto immune disease, etc are pretty much uncontrollable risks for the insurance companies. If your patient population can't decrease their controllable risk factors, then they potentially cost the company more money. It's one of the ways to distribute cost while also improving health. It came into vogue earlier this decade. Who knows how well it works. Haven't really seen any data, but it puts some of the responsibility of health back with the patient. AGDee's insurance scheme seems a little harsh to me, though.
Threaded Mode
