Others argue it is better to invest public funds in encouraging a healthy lifestyle than to have to pay for the sickness of those who are already ill. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with this?
Others argue it is better to invest public funds in encouraging a healthy lifestyle than to have to pay for the sickness of those who are already ill. Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with this?
Where to spend public health expenditure has been a point of hot discussion between policymakers and citizens for decades. Thus while many will argue more funds should go to preventive health, others insist treating those diagnosed with illness still cannot take a back seat. I partly support the former perspective as I think optimal solution should be a combination of prevention and treatment.
This provides an economic case to invest heavily into health promotion and prevention of disease. Promoting healthier diets, increased physical activity, and eliminating smoking and excessive alcohol consumption can significantly lower the incidence of chronic diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity. Prevention is not only a better option, but it is cheaper than treatment at the most economic level. Investing in the underlying drivers of sickness prior to becoming sick also reduces pressure on stretched health systems, ensuring funding can be allocated to other urgent needs within society. Places like Finland and Japan, who have historically invested time and resources into preventive health education and infrastructure see lower rates of lifestyle-related diseases and such healthcare spending.
It would thus be implausible and morally indefensible to run entirely away from medical to use. Sick people — whether because of poor choices, genetic lottery tickets, or pure luck — deserve access to treatment. Refusal, or just not funding a tailored treatment program will result in unnecessary physical demise, escalation of pain and suffering, as well as creating avenues for disparity; all areas which disproportionately has an effect on those less fortuitous (and individuals with serious illness who are low-income). Also, there are some conditions that cannot be avoided by behaviour change no matter how healthy the lifestyle, this means an ongoing investment in treatment is imperative.
Moreover, because the impact of preventive spending is only seen in health outcomes over years — sometimes decades —40–42 it is possible that this argument will have been rendered moot by time. Meanwhile, we have no choice but to respond with the urgency demanded by caring for the sick. A government that turns its back on this duty runs the risk of diluting popular faith in its institutions.
In summary, I totally support a boost to promoting healthy lifestyles as a long term plan for improving health & reducing costs but do not think we need to jeopardise treatment services in the process. Governments must pursue a dual approach — devoting adequate resources to both prevention and care — so that they can build an efficient and empathetic health system.