If you throw a die ten times and it comes up heads six, do you “hesitantly update a very tiny bit” in the direction of the coin being biased?
If I throw a die once and it comes up heads I’m going to be confused. Now, assuming you meant “toss a coin and it comes up heads six times out of ten”.
What is your intended ‘correct’ answer to the question? I think I would indeed hesitantly update a very (very) tiny bit in the direction of the coin being biased but different priors regarding the possibility of the coin being biased in various ways and degrees could easily make the update be towards not-biased. I’d significantly lower p(the coin is biased by having two heads) but very slightly raise p(the coin is slightly heavier on the tails side), etc.
My intended correct answer is that, on this data, you technically can adjust your belief very slightly; but because the prior for a biased coin is so tiny, the update is not worth doing. The calculation cost way exceeds any benefit you can get from gruel this thin. I would say “Null hypothesis [ie unbiased coin] not disconfirmed; move along, nothing to see here”. And if you had a political reason for wishing the coin to be biased towards heads, then you should definitely not make any such update; because you certainly wouldn’t have done so, if tails had come up six times. In that case it would immediately have been “P-level is in the double digits” and “no statistical significance means exactly that” and “with those errors we’re still consistent with a heads bias”.
My intended correct answer is that, on this data, you technically can adjust your belief very slightly; but because the prior for a biased coin is so tiny, the update is not worth do
I would think that our prior for “health care improves health” should be quite a bit larger than the prior for a coin to be biased.
Hanson’s point is that we often over-treat to show we care- not that 0 health care is optimal. Medicaid patients don’t really have to worry about overtreatment.
Hanson’s point is that we often over-treat to show we care- not that 0 health care is optimal
I was interpreting “health care improves health” as “healthcare improves health on the margin.” Is this not what was meant?
Medicaid patients don’t really have to worry about overtreatment.
As someone who has a start-up in the healthcare industry, this runs counter to my personal experience. Also, currently “medicaid overtreatment” is showing about 676,000 results on Google (while “medicaid undertreatment” is showing about 1,240,000 results). Even if it isn’t typical, it surely isn’t an unheard-of phenomenon.
I was interpreting “health care improves health” as “healthcare improves health on the margin.” Is this not what was meant?
No, I meant going from 0 access to care to some access to care improves health, as we are discussing the medicaid study comparing people on medicaid to the uninsured.
As someone who has a start-up in the healthcare industry, this runs counter to my personal experience.
I currently work as a statistician for a large HMO, and I can tell you for us, medicaid patients generally get the ‘patch-you-up-and-out-the-door’ treatment because odds are high we won’t be getting reimbursed in any kind of timely fashion. I’ve worked in a few states, and it seems pretty common for medicaid to be fairly underfunded (hence the Oregon study we are discussing).
And generally, providing medicaid is moving someone from emergency-only to some-primary-care, which is where we should expect some impact- this isn’t increasing treatment on the margin, its providing minimal care to a largely untreated population.
Currently, “medicaid overtreatment” is showing about 676,000 results on Google
So I randomly sampled ~5 in the first two pages, and 3 of those were articles about overtreatment that had a sidebar to a different article discussing some aspect of medicaid, so I’m not sure if the count is meaningful here. (The other 2 were about some loophole dentists were using to overtreat children on medicaid and bill extra, I have no knowledge of dental claims).
No, I meant going from 0 access to care to some access to care improves health, as we are discussing the medicaid study comparing people on medicaid to the uninsured.
This does not appear to be the actual change in access to care when going from being uninsured to on medicaid. As you mention, uninsured patients receive emergency-only care.
If I throw a die once and it comes up heads I’m going to be confused. Now, assuming you meant “toss a coin and it comes up heads six times out of ten”.
What is your intended ‘correct’ answer to the question? I think I would indeed hesitantly update a very (very) tiny bit in the direction of the coin being biased but different priors regarding the possibility of the coin being biased in various ways and degrees could easily make the update be towards not-biased. I’d significantly lower p(the coin is biased by having two heads) but very slightly raise p(the coin is slightly heavier on the tails side), etc.
My intended correct answer is that, on this data, you technically can adjust your belief very slightly; but because the prior for a biased coin is so tiny, the update is not worth doing. The calculation cost way exceeds any benefit you can get from gruel this thin. I would say “Null hypothesis [ie unbiased coin] not disconfirmed; move along, nothing to see here”. And if you had a political reason for wishing the coin to be biased towards heads, then you should definitely not make any such update; because you certainly wouldn’t have done so, if tails had come up six times. In that case it would immediately have been “P-level is in the double digits” and “no statistical significance means exactly that” and “with those errors we’re still consistent with a heads bias”.
I would think that our prior for “health care improves health” should be quite a bit larger than the prior for a coin to be biased.
That depends on how long “we” have been reading Overcoming Bias.
Hanson’s point is that we often over-treat to show we care- not that 0 health care is optimal. Medicaid patients don’t really have to worry about overtreatment.
I was interpreting “health care improves health” as “healthcare improves health on the margin.” Is this not what was meant?
As someone who has a start-up in the healthcare industry, this runs counter to my personal experience. Also, currently “medicaid overtreatment” is showing about 676,000 results on Google (while “medicaid undertreatment” is showing about 1,240,000 results). Even if it isn’t typical, it surely isn’t an unheard-of phenomenon.
No, I meant going from 0 access to care to some access to care improves health, as we are discussing the medicaid study comparing people on medicaid to the uninsured.
I currently work as a statistician for a large HMO, and I can tell you for us, medicaid patients generally get the ‘patch-you-up-and-out-the-door’ treatment because odds are high we won’t be getting reimbursed in any kind of timely fashion. I’ve worked in a few states, and it seems pretty common for medicaid to be fairly underfunded (hence the Oregon study we are discussing).
And generally, providing medicaid is moving someone from emergency-only to some-primary-care, which is where we should expect some impact- this isn’t increasing treatment on the margin, its providing minimal care to a largely untreated population.
So I randomly sampled ~5 in the first two pages, and 3 of those were articles about overtreatment that had a sidebar to a different article discussing some aspect of medicaid, so I’m not sure if the count is meaningful here. (The other 2 were about some loophole dentists were using to overtreat children on medicaid and bill extra, I have no knowledge of dental claims).
This does not appear to be the actual change in access to care when going from being uninsured to on medicaid. As you mention, uninsured patients receive emergency-only care.