Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Greedy Doctor Problem

universalprior.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 182 posts

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#11

Post by cfu28 »

kuiper0x2 wrote: post #2

The obvious, obvious thing is to simply pay the doctor a fix priced each month wether they diagnose you with something or not. Well above what they would earn elsewhere. Their incentive then becomes to keep a good relationship with you so you continue to pay them. The best way to do that is to keep you healthy and happy.

This assumes that actions that make a patient happy also make them healthy. There’s a risk that pursuing patient happiness can come at the expense of patient health. The doctor may be more inclined to keep a patient from switching doctors to keep getting paid.

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#12

Post by BerislavLopac »

gruez wrote: post #6
BerislavLopac wrote: post #5

The ideal solution is to move to a country with a great public health care (say, Denmark or Switzerland).

Isn't that just handwaving the problem away? eg. "high corruption? the ideal solution to move to a country with a great civil service"

Generally speaking, absolutely. But the original problem statement begins with "you are very rich", which changes the rules a bit.

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#13

Post by Vecr »

This problem appears to be highly contrived, why are there only two options (healthy or treat), why is the detective a clone of the doctor, why can't anyone use a true quantum random number generator, and how exactly are the two doctors supposed to act in lockstep as actual agents?

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#14

Post by catlikesshrimp »

dstroot wrote: post #7
gwerbret wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the idea of paying the doctor a flat fee every month, but in my variant, the doctor has to repay you the entire sum you've paid to date, with 10% interest, if you succumb to any preventable illnesses; in other words, the doctor now has some real skin in the game. S/he becomes motivated not only to keep you well, but to keep the fees reasonable.

The doctor will purchase "refund insurance" and pass that cost along in the monthly retainer.

Some insurance policies must not exist. Malpractice policies must not exist.

I am sure if I asked my mates they would all disagree with me on this. Bad luck for the patients.

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#15

Post by chriscross »

gwerbret wrote: post #3
kuiper0x2 wrote: post #2

The obvious, obvious thing is to simply pay the doctor a fix priced each month wether they diagnose you with something or not. Well above what they would earn elsewhere. Their incentive then becomes to keep a good relationship with you so you continue to pay them. The best way to do that is to keep you healthy and happy.

I agree with the idea of paying the doctor a flat fee every month, but in my variant, the doctor has to repay you the entire sum you've paid to date, with 10% interest, if you succumb to any preventable illnesses; in other words, the doctor now has some real skin in the game. S/he becomes motivated not only to keep you well, but to keep the fees reasonable.

That’s horribly ignorant considering that many diseases have a large genetic component and people are rarely 100% compliant with the things they need to do to prevent a disease. Even when a doctor lets them know how to prevent the disease. How would this work for a disease, for example, like Alzheimer’s where the onset is much earlier in life (40s) but doesn’t manifest until much later in life and has no diagnostic test at age 40? What about hypertension where the majority of it is idiopathic? Would the doctor be blamed for all this despite practicing evidenced based medicine? I’d argue that a lot of diseases are this way and placing the blame on a doctor is a way to shift personal responsibility.

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#16

Post by catlikesshrimp »

kuiper0x2 wrote: post #2

The obvious, obvious thing is to simply pay the doctor a fix priced each month wether they diagnose you with something or not. Well above what they would earn elsewhere. Their incentive then becomes to keep a good relationship with you so you continue to pay them. The best way to do that is to keep you healthy and happy.

Pay a fixed rate.... Like a health insurance plan? That doesn't work well in the US

Edit: The smarter person will charge you while you are healthy and not treat you when you need it, or underdeliver for the expectations.

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#18

Post by oaktrout »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #14
dstroot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doctor will purchase "refund insurance" and pass that cost along in the monthly retainer.

Some insurance policies must not exist. Malpractice policies must not exist. I am sure if I asked my mates they would all disagree with me on this. Bad luck for the patients.

Without malpractice insurance, would doctors be incentivized to not take on risky patients? Risky could be defined as litigious (I know this patient has sued another doctor before) or medically difficult to treat (this patient needs this surgery but they are at high risk of poor outcome due to their current state of health).

Having sued a doctor once, you might never be able to get medical treatment again.

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#19

Post by pc86 »

gwerbret wrote: post #3
kuiper0x2 wrote: post #2

The obvious, obvious thing is to simply pay the doctor a fix priced each month wether they diagnose you with something or not. Well above what they would earn elsewhere. Their incentive then becomes to keep a good relationship with you so you continue to pay them. The best way to do that is to keep you healthy and happy.

I agree with the idea of paying the doctor a flat fee every month, but in my variant, the doctor has to repay you the entire sum you've paid to date, with 10% interest, if you succumb to any preventable illnesses; in other words, the doctor now has some real skin in the game. S/he becomes motivated not only to keep you well, but to keep the fees reasonable.

Even for HN this is a pretty shockingly out of touch "I don't know anything about $X but I can figure it out 'from first principles!!1'" type of comment.

Re: The Greedy Doctor Problem

#20

Post by pc86 »

oaktrout wrote: post #18
catlikesshrimp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some insurance policies must not exist. Malpractice policies must not exist. I am sure if I asked my mates they would all disagree with me on this. Bad luck for the patients.

Without malpractice insurance, would doctors be incentivized to not take on risky patients? Risky could be defined as litigious (I know this patient has sued another doctor before) or medically difficult to treat (this patient needs this surgery but they are at high risk of poor outcome due to their current state of health). Having sued a doctor once, you might never be able to get medical treatment again.

Which would also disincentivize ridiculous lawsuits that you'd almost certainly lose.
Post reply on HN