Here's one problem with screening: A colonoscopy is a $2000+ procedure, and insurance won't always pay for it unless it's medically necessary.
So, if you have a family history of colon cancer and you've entered the age range where screening typically starts, you may be out of luck. Yes, treating cancer is vastly more expensive than screening for it. So why not pay for regular screenings? I think health insurance companies (and employers) probably do a cost analysis and determine that the cost of detecting and catching stage 1 colon cancer in a screening is more expensive than the cost of waiting for it to develop into something that requires treatment, because by that time there's a very good chance that the worker will no longer be at the same company.
I'm hopeful the costs and effectiveness of non-invasive imaging technologies and auto-analysis will come down in the next 10 years to the point where "screenings" can be done for a fraction of a colonoscopy. But, of course, the manufacturers of the current generation of imaging technologies -- the Siemens and Intels of the world -- are perfectly happy with the jaw-dropping price tags that hospitals and clinics have to pay and pass onto the consumer. If some smart startup comes along with a cheaper solution, just buy 'em out or use monopoly muscle to take them out of the picture.
Colonoscopies cost loads of money because they are performed in a Dr's. office. Insurance won't pay for them because they don't want you to actually go to a Dr's. office.
Screenings can come down in price if they can be performed outside of Dr's. offices which they completely can. We need to separate these things out so we can move insurance out of the day to day choices about your health. That way you are in control of our health and improve your health on your own dollar with your own choices. It won't happen overnight, but getting people to think about the problem differently is the first step.
So, if you have a family history of colon cancer and you've entered the age range where screening typically starts, you may be out of luck. Yes, treating cancer is vastly more expensive than screening for it. So why not pay for regular screenings? I think health insurance companies (and employers) probably do a cost analysis and determine that the cost of detecting and catching stage 1 colon cancer in a screening is more expensive than the cost of waiting for it to develop into something that requires treatment, because by that time there's a very good chance that the worker will no longer be at the same company.
I'm hopeful the costs and effectiveness of non-invasive imaging technologies and auto-analysis will come down in the next 10 years to the point where "screenings" can be done for a fraction of a colonoscopy. But, of course, the manufacturers of the current generation of imaging technologies -- the Siemens and Intels of the world -- are perfectly happy with the jaw-dropping price tags that hospitals and clinics have to pay and pass onto the consumer. If some smart startup comes along with a cheaper solution, just buy 'em out or use monopoly muscle to take them out of the picture.
OK, end of rant. Back to our normal programming.