Just ran across an interesting study. In it, Ruby Siddiqui argues that it's cost effective to treat all symptomatic patients with antiviral medications, even given the fact that you'll inevitably waste some courses on patients who aren't infected. What isn't cost-effective is to try and test each case and then administer antivirals. it's one of those cases where it's less expensive to permit some waste of the resource than it is to tightly identify the affected population. Abstract here : Many countries are stockpiling antiviral (AV) drugs in preparation for a possible influenza pandemic. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of such a strategy and the role of near-patient testing in conserving AV stocks, using a decision-analytical model. Under base-case assumptions (which included a fixed stockpile size that was smaller than the clinical attack rate) treating all symptomatic patients ('Treat Only') would be considered cost-effective (approximately £1,900-£13,800 per QALY...

Not really sure what to say about this. It did make me realize that one of my favorite things in life is hearing people painfully enunciate slang. Saying the word "swagga" is not the same as saying the corrupted version of the word "swagger."

From his interview with David Leonhardt: I have always said, though, that we should not overstate the degree to which consumers rather than doctors are going to be driving treatment, because, I just speak from my own experience, I’m a pretty-well-educated layperson when it comes to medical care; I know how to ask good questions of my doctor. But ultimately, he’s the guy with the medical degree. So, if he tells me, You know what, you’ve got such-and-such and you need to take such-and-such, I don’t go around arguing with him or go online to see if I can find a better opinion than his. And so, in that sense, there’s always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider. And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options. And certainly that’s true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, where the taxpayers are footing the bill and we have an obligation to get those costs under control.

From his interview with David Leonhardt: THE PRESIDENT: What I think will change, what I think was an aberration, was a situation where corporate profits in the financial sector were such a heavy part of our overall profitability over the last decade. That I think will change. And so part of that has to do with the effects of regulation that will inhibit some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common. Now, in some ways, I think it’s important to understand that some of that wealth was illusory in the first place. So we won’t miss it? THE PRESIDENT: We will miss it in the sense that as a consequence of 25-year-olds getting million-dollar bonuses, they were willing to pay $100 for a steak dinner and that waiter was getting the kinds of tips that would make a college professor envious. And so some of the dynamic of the financial sector will have some trickle-down effects, particularly in a place like Manhattan. But I actually think that there was...

I don't think press conferences are terribly useful mediums. The assembled reporters haven't settled on a theory of what they're trying to accomplish. Some, like Ed Henry with his question on abortion, are looking to elicit a moment of spontaneous embarrassment or a flash of unexpected controversy. Some, like Andre Showell and his question on unemployment in black communities, try to air issues that don't normally command presidential attention. Some, like Jeff Zeleny and his request for Obama to recall a moment of "enchantment," want the flash of humanity that leavens the processions of policy details. Some, to paraphrase Armageddon Now, don't exhibit any method at all. But it's all happening at once. Reporters choose from a dozen theories of questioning and a nearly infinite number of topics. You get the occasional moment of insight, but it's generally an accidental thing, akin to pulling a book from a wall and finding you've opened the Bat Cave. So though the transcript to the...

When Arlen Specter originally switched parties, I didn't think it meant much for health reform. So far as Republicans went, Specter was a likely get. His switch to the Democratic side made him yet likelier. But it was hard to say anything more definitive than that. Since then, Barack Obama and Arlen Specter have both dropped hints that their conversations are considerably advanced on one issue in particular: Health care. At last night's press conference, Obama was asked about Specter's defection. He spent a couple minutes echoing Arlen on Arlen: He's not a rubber stamp, long and distinguished record, streak of independence, etc. But then Obama said something telling: I do think that having Arlen Specter in the Dem Caucus will liberate him to cooperate on critical issues like health care, like infrastructure and job creation, areas where his inclination was to work with us but he was feeling pressure not to. That doesn't read like a speculative comment. It reads like Specter told Obama...

I'm with Ben Miller and Frank Bruni : Restaurants should charge for bread. As Bruni argues, there's no such thing as "free bread." Rather, there's such a thing as "slightly more expensive entrees." And that's the thing people are getting when they think they're getting free bread. That might all be fine if the amount of bread people were receiving corresponded to the amount of people who would actually pay the marginal cost of a baguette and some butter. But that's almost certainly not the case. Things that are considered "free" are not treated rationally. A nice experimental demonstration of this was relayed in Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions . A few years ago, Amazon introduced "Free!" Super Saver Shipping. The deal was simple: By $25 worth of merchandise, save $3.99 in shipping. Sales shot up worldwide as consumers bought a bit more merchandise to qualify for free shipping. Except in France. When Amazon investigated the anomaly,...