Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Quick Video: Healthcare Economics (Patreon)

Published:
2022-01-06 12:39:26
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Hey everyone, in the interests of doing a bit more for y'all this year, I've uploaded a simple 20 minute explainer of some key ideas in health economics. There are no visual cues so it can just be listened to as a podcast. Enjoy!

Files

Previews only

Health & Economics

An introduction to health economics Arrow's paper: https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf Keegs' explanation of Arrow's paper: https://jacobmkeegan.medium.com/the-ol-arrow-63-4cf053d2dbbc The Humble Economist (book on health economics): https://www.york.ac.uk/che/publications/books/the-humble-economist/

Comments

Jacob M Keegan

Tbh with that apples and healthcare comparison, I was thinking of it more like this: if you get the wrong doctor, they could do something wrong and you die. Or, say you get a doctor to treat an infected wound, but the doctor sucks and you end up having to amputate. These are extreme cases, but the point is you can't just freely try out a doctor and see how well they do, the risks are way too high. You're certainly right about how noisy the signal here is too! PS: thanks for linking to my article :)

Unlearning Economics
>>75362807

No prob bud, it's a nice summary. But yeah, when I was summarising Arrow, I was kind of adding my 2c. I don't think the idea of credence goods existed at the time he was writing, but he probably had a hand in inventing the term.

Dr Jennifer Burgess

Nice video thanks! I hadn't heard of the Arrow paper. Patients cannot be expected to know whether a doctor is providing good treatment, the metrics they use to judge their doctor are often around things like how nice they seem which are clearly open to bias (e.g. Harold Shipman was very popular among his patients(!), doctors from ethnic minorities are reported more to the GMC compared with white doctors who make comparable mistakes). I appreciate your point about the QALYs being ableist a lot - there are thousands of people employed in health economics and there are much fewer huge breakthroughs being made in pharma these days, so I don't see why we have to lose information in this way by reducing everything to QALYs. A more nuanced conversation is possible.