I need to explain to a bunch of Doctors, who are not a captive audiance, that patients sometimes choose to spend money on other things when they pay for their own health care. Given a choice, some would prefer to leave a condition untreated (especially if it is cosmetic), and spend their money on other things. I then need to explain that, as the economy gets worse, people spend less on healthcare (that healthcare is a normal good).
Here’s the rub - the MD’s work for Universities (and all that politically implies).
I am trying to make the case that, given their percieved ethical obligations (if they feel that people should consume the same amount of their services for their own good), they should focus on lowering the costs of providing care, so they can lower the costs of obtaining it.
The classic way to present the first part is with an indifference curve and budget constraint, but I am afraid that is too abstract. The second is a Marshallian supply and demand curve, but I know they will just see “economics blah blah blah” and tune me out.
How can I present this data in a way they can relate to? I’d like to use some sort of concrete example with a chart they can see (like the way you explain competitive advantage to freshmen), but I don’t know where to start. It might also be possible to use some sort of graphs they are used to seeing from medical research, but I am afraid I don’t know where to start.
Ultimately, I am trying to convince them that “innovating costs down” is as important, if not more important, than the small marginal improvements in care their university is focused on. (Arguing that the consumer would be better off without the gray-beards making choices for them isn’t going to be well recieved.) If providing better healthcare to all is their goal, and morally so, then they need to pursue cost-cutting ideas with the same vigor they pursue life extending ones.