Preventive

Health Savings Act

Official title: “To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 respecting the scoring of
preventive health savings”

Summary Statement
Many health programs have been demonstrated to be effective in preventing chronic diseases,
but also cause a great negative economic impact on the healthcare system. Previously, it was
not taken into consideration that long-term costs would be lower if the view was “widened” so
The Preventative Savings Act would allow the CBO to give a more accurate assessment in order
to view the benefits of preventative programs

Background
- Preventive health programs are beneficial for improving health associated with chronic
diseases and saving money in the future.
- The long-term benefits of preventive health programs could take longer than 10 years to be
displayed.
Scope and Parties Involved
The scope of this act is at a national level, but like anything, once enacted could spur international change
It affects many parties to include:
Healthcare system
Hospital (as entity): As they will see in initial boost in patients through prevention and compensation
for them, but eventually if successful, will begin to decrease severity of disease states,
decrease
diseased patients, and need to provide less services due to the success of the act.
Hospital staff: Less staff will be needed to tend to patients to parallel the decrease in needs from
patients due to improved health, creating economic struggle and inevitable job losses. Important to
note is that staff are also patients at some point as well and will see economic and physical
improvement s in their personal life.
Patients: Improved long-term health will improve overall quality of life. Less appointments and
missed days of work, resulting in an improved work efficiency.
Pharmaceutical
Laboratories (company): Less funding will be made available to research new drugs to mask
effects of disease states due to the prevention. Less laboratoratories in business, allowing for new
allocation of scientists in the workforce to contribute in new areas of prevention, rather than
treatment.
Chemists: Less work available to due to decrease in treatment
Government allocation on research

Historical context
Facts
There is a clear focus on treatment rather than prevention in the United States that is causing irreparable damage to
the structure of our economy due to medical related costs and primarily affecting those who do not have the
resources. The lessened concentration on prevention contributes to a direct increase in treatments which do not
“treat” the root of the problem. It is expensive to invest in preventative measures and seemingly more cost effective
to treat the development of chronic disease states.

The pharmaceutical industry contributes heavily to the FDA’s annual budget, who in turn continue to approve funding
and drugs to enter the market for treatment purposes.

Most obvious argument against our position

Prevention efforts will not be effective as currently preventative information exists and is not utilized in order to
improve health. People have an inherent pattern of neglecting their health and despite preventive measures, they
will return to previous living patterns.

The pharmaceutical companies will not view this positively and monopolize the interest of the FDA through monetary
measures. The decrease in need of drug production, new or old, would have a negative impact on the pharmaceutical
company. This decrease in need would decrease funding to the FDA, by pharma, and reduce the salaries of those who
benefit from the union

Rebuttal

There will always be a portion of the population that does not heed advice when provided with it, but for the many, it
is important that we prioritize their health in terms of prevention. We cannot allow the union of government and the
pharmaceutical company to monopolize our health and the future of preventative healthcare. This is an act that
would improve the overall health of our nation.