Why Pets Get Better Healthcare Than People
Wednesday March 28, 2007
In a post titled Health Care Economics, Eclectecon (a former Professor of mine) discusses how animals can get surgery right away and people cannot.
I hear this comparison all the time and I think it's an unfair one. I'm also a big animal lover - we have two cats and a chocolate Labrador Retriever named Robbie Burns. So while I don't study health care economics, I do have a fair bit of experience with both human and animal healthcare.
The reason why pets get better health care than people is not directly due to institutional arrangements (i.e. the argument that if we just got the government out of the way, everything would be super). It's due to the fact that we find the idea of making health care decisions based on cost okay, if very unpleasant, for pets, but completely inhumane for people. Unless society ever decides that it's okay to say "I'm sorry Grandpa, but your life-saving operation is going to cost $20,000 and I'd rather spend the money on a new car", there simply won't be the downward pressure on prices that there is for veternary care, where the "I can't afford that much" option is viable (but for many, like myself, incredibly unpleasant). The own price elasticity of demand for human health care is naturally highly inelastic. I do not see a way around the problem unless we, as a society, decide it is okay for people to go without life-saving surgeries due to a lack of funds. That's not a road I wish to go down, but since I'm not particularly wealthy, that may just be self-interest speaking.
I hear this comparison all the time and I think it's an unfair one. I'm also a big animal lover - we have two cats and a chocolate Labrador Retriever named Robbie Burns. So while I don't study health care economics, I do have a fair bit of experience with both human and animal healthcare.
The reason why pets get better health care than people is not directly due to institutional arrangements (i.e. the argument that if we just got the government out of the way, everything would be super). It's due to the fact that we find the idea of making health care decisions based on cost okay, if very unpleasant, for pets, but completely inhumane for people. Unless society ever decides that it's okay to say "I'm sorry Grandpa, but your life-saving operation is going to cost $20,000 and I'd rather spend the money on a new car", there simply won't be the downward pressure on prices that there is for veternary care, where the "I can't afford that much" option is viable (but for many, like myself, incredibly unpleasant). The own price elasticity of demand for human health care is naturally highly inelastic. I do not see a way around the problem unless we, as a society, decide it is okay for people to go without life-saving surgeries due to a lack of funds. That's not a road I wish to go down, but since I'm not particularly wealthy, that may just be self-interest speaking.
Comments
Mike,
Even if you are right about the low price elasticity of demand (which I doubt — lots of people put off treatment or seek alternative treatments for many things if the price is high; not all decisions are life and death.), you are ignoring the supply side of the market with this response. The price elasticity of supply of health care is not zero, and I doubt if it is very low.