That which costs money, and that which is painful

Health Business Blog responds to a WSJ article about rising medical costs which a study's author attributes (in part) to rising technology costs. David Williams correctly asks whether this is the only industry in which technology drives costs up, rather than down. Trent McBride at Catallarchy ponders the (apparent?) puzzle.

Could it be a case of what is seen, and what is not?

I recently had ACL reconstruction surgery. It was the same procedure my Mom had, and even the same surgeon, but 20 years later. My procedure involved all kinds of high tech equipment (so they tell me - how do I really know?), and the invoices are starting to roll in. That's what we see.

What we don't see is the lack of a 5 day hospital stay and countless weeks on crutches and away from work (as in Mom's case). I never went to the hospital (their surgery facility was on-site), I was in the waiting room at 8 AM and back in the car by 12 noon (same day), I never used pain medication, I was walking without crutches 3 days later (not well, but still it was walking!), and I returned to work the next week. What would have been the cost to me and other impacted parties (my employer, my insurance company, the hospital, other hospital patients) if I had the older procedure? I think it would have been staggering.

What is the cost of pain not endured, of work not done, of life not lived? I know that I can calculate Bessel functions in Excel (to solve antenna pattern problems), but in WWII they had to fill gymnasiums with people using mechanical calculators to make up tables for radar engineers. Which is more expensive - a Dell with MS Office, or a gymful of people working for weeks on end? But today, all we see is the cost of the Office-equipped Dell, not the roomful of people.