I arrived at the diner and pulled my keys from the ignition with the same motion that had turned the vehicle off. As I slid out of the seat I slipped my hand into my pocket, confirming that my wallet was within. It wasn't.
I checked my other pockets, and then the spare pair of pants I had in my bag - although I hadn't worn them. I opened the glove compartment, checked under and behind the seats, and in all the pockets of my bag. The wallet just wasn't there.
Panic rose in my throat. Had I left it at work? Work was half an hour's drive, and closed for the night. Further, this was Sunday night, so they wouldn't be open again until Friday. It would really have been problematic if I had left my wallet there.
I took a breath, released it slowly. No, I decided, you left your wallet on the desk at home. I smiled, and grabbed the ten dollar bill I had discovered when I had been searching, and brought it with me. I had to be careful how much I ordered, but it was a fun time with my coworkers.
I found my wallet on my desk the next morning - it was half buried in a small pile of papers.
What am I getting at here, anyway?
Showing posts with label cost. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cost. Show all posts
Monday, October 8, 2007
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Fish Oil is not Snake Oil
Studies have not shown if fish liver oil helps with depression. Science sometimes fails to be like the thing that it studies; that is, slow-moving and focused. I have not the slightest idea if fish oil has any impact on depression (although it is probably as effective a placebo as anything else out there), but I'm pretty sure that you aren't going to get fast results out of a natural phenomenon.
Any scientific study must be funded, and most funding comes from the companies that profit from research - the ones making products that they can sell. Sunlight, plants you can pick from your own garden, and air just aren't going to be studied as serious treatments for anything since they're free and plentiful (unless a marketing person can find a way to sell us what we already have, a la pet rocks); things like fish oil and cow pies and cat hair are all common enough that it would be tough to charge a lot for treatments derived from them, also discouraging the really big research bucks. We aren't likely to see long-term studies on depression treatments that nobody can make money from.
There have been some amazing breakthroughs for treatments of all manner of diseases through new drugs. That doesn't mean that every drug is wonderful, nor does it mean that every disease's cure is in pill form. Well-trained pharmaceutical representatives earn a great living convincing doctors to prescribe their products, and no one is out there equally passionately pitching St. John's wort, taking a walk every day, fish oil, getting a puppy, copper bracelets, and believing in God (at least in doctor's offices). Plenty of alternative therapies may be effective, but the medical community isn't designed to find out.
Of course, I can't say that I would like the idea of being accosted by fish-oil salesmen.
Any scientific study must be funded, and most funding comes from the companies that profit from research - the ones making products that they can sell. Sunlight, plants you can pick from your own garden, and air just aren't going to be studied as serious treatments for anything since they're free and plentiful (unless a marketing person can find a way to sell us what we already have, a la pet rocks); things like fish oil and cow pies and cat hair are all common enough that it would be tough to charge a lot for treatments derived from them, also discouraging the really big research bucks. We aren't likely to see long-term studies on depression treatments that nobody can make money from.
There have been some amazing breakthroughs for treatments of all manner of diseases through new drugs. That doesn't mean that every drug is wonderful, nor does it mean that every disease's cure is in pill form. Well-trained pharmaceutical representatives earn a great living convincing doctors to prescribe their products, and no one is out there equally passionately pitching St. John's wort, taking a walk every day, fish oil, getting a puppy, copper bracelets, and believing in God (at least in doctor's offices). Plenty of alternative therapies may be effective, but the medical community isn't designed to find out.
Of course, I can't say that I would like the idea of being accosted by fish-oil salesmen.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Will Employers Actually Help?
This is an interesting study - careful tracking of employees through screening and treatment, even accounting for various levels of quality of treatment, to see how much productivity could be improved by working to overcome the depression. I'm more amazed with the process than with the results. The keys to such an enhanced depression screening program working would be twofold:
First, the employers must recognize that the cost of replacing an employee with another, which would not include the cost of depression treatment, would still be higher. Training and development, even for a relatively low-challenge job like fast food, can amount to thousands of dollars. The investment would be a crap shoot if you consider that a lack of depression screening could land another underperforming individual on the payroll.
Second, it must be mandatory, or it will be a failure. Nobody submits themselves for depression screening, or nearly nobody. Half of the depression victims don't realize they have a problem and the other half are too ashamed to admit it. Most of the people with a need would never be identified, so the cost would have no offset in value.
Employers are very results-oriented, so hard data such as these are promising. It is still likely only to be implemented by employers that are independent enough not to have to answer to stakeholders that are so shortsighted that they resist anything without an immediate benefit, and only in industries where employees are likely to stay more than the five years projected by the study as the point at which savings develop.
First, the employers must recognize that the cost of replacing an employee with another, which would not include the cost of depression treatment, would still be higher. Training and development, even for a relatively low-challenge job like fast food, can amount to thousands of dollars. The investment would be a crap shoot if you consider that a lack of depression screening could land another underperforming individual on the payroll.
Second, it must be mandatory, or it will be a failure. Nobody submits themselves for depression screening, or nearly nobody. Half of the depression victims don't realize they have a problem and the other half are too ashamed to admit it. Most of the people with a need would never be identified, so the cost would have no offset in value.
Employers are very results-oriented, so hard data such as these are promising. It is still likely only to be implemented by employers that are independent enough not to have to answer to stakeholders that are so shortsighted that they resist anything without an immediate benefit, and only in industries where employees are likely to stay more than the five years projected by the study as the point at which savings develop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
