In healthcare, much of the conversation centers around what happens after people get sick: treatments, surgeries, hospitalizations, and expensive medications. But the most cost-effective and humane approach to improving health is often the one that gets the least attention and the least funding: prevention.
Preventive care is not glamorous. It doesn’t generate headline-grabbing breakthroughs or six-figure reimbursements. It doesn’t usually involve high-tech equipment or elite specialists. And yet, its value to public health, and to the economy, is enormous. The challenge lies in recognizing that value and designing incentives that reward long-term benefits, not just short-term fixes.
Why Prevention Saves, but Struggles to Get Funded
From an economic perspective, prevention has a clear logic: stop disease before it starts, and you avoid the cost of treating it later. Immunizing a child costs far less than treating measles or meningitis. A colonoscopy is more affordable than colorectal cancer care. Smoking cessation programs are cheaper than managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or lung cancer.
Yet preventive services are chronically underfunded, especially in the U.S. public health system. Local health departments operate on tight budgets, often subject to political shifts and funding cuts. Hospitals and insurers, meanwhile, are built around treatment, not avoidance. Even when prevention does fall under their umbrella, it competes with revenue-generating services.
The economic disconnect comes down to timing and attribution. Prevention costs money now but pays off later. The benefits might not show up for years, and when they do, the savings might accrue to someone else. A primary care provider’s investment in weight loss counseling might reduce a hospital’s burden years down the line, but that benefit is invisible in the provider’s bottom line.
In private insurance markets, this problem is magnified by churn. Insurers are hesitant to invest in long-term health if a patient might switch plans in a year or two. The result is a system where the incentives to treat are stronger than the incentives to prevent.
Externalities, Public Goods, and the Case for Government Involvement
Prevention also suffers from a classic source of market failure, positive externalities. Prevention provides benefits that extend beyond the individual who receives the service. When one person gets vaccinated, for example, their protection lowers the risk of transmission for others. When a community supports smoking cessation, everyone benefits from reduced second-hand smoke and lower healthcare costs.
The flip side is that individuals may choose not to obtain preventive care, knowing they will still benefit from other people’s decision to do so. This is known as the free rider problem, and it weakens voluntary systems. If vaccination rates fall below herd immunity thresholds this can lead to avoidable outbreaks of diseases like measles. As with other public goods, like clean air or safe drinking water, public health requires collective investment to succeed. This is why government has a central role to play in funding immunization programs, creating safety regulations, and responding to public health crises.
The pandemic made this painfully clear. COVID-19 did not respect borders or insurance status. A weak public health system in one community can be a national vulnerability. Prevention is not just cost-effective, it’s a form of strategic infrastructure.
Return on Investment Is Real, But Uneven
Many preventive interventions offer a strong return on investment (ROI), but not all of them save money. Some, like childhood vaccines and smoking cessation, are both cost-saving and health-improving. Others, like cancer screenings, may be cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, even if they do not reduce total spending.
Economists weigh these interventions using cost-effectiveness thresholds, not just whether they save money outright. A screening that prevents one cancer death may still be worthwhile, even if the cost is high, depending on the value placed on added life years and quality of life.
What matters is prioritizing high-value prevention — interventions that provide significant health benefit relative to cost. These include vaccinations, hypertension screening, prenatal care, tobacco control, and harm-reduction services like needle exchanges. But even these proven strategies struggle for attention when budgets are tight or when public support for long-term investment is weak.
Shifting from Treatment to Prevention
The Affordable Care Act took steps to promote prevention, requiring insurers to cover many preventive services without cost-sharing. Medicare now pays for annual wellness visits, and some employers invest in workplace wellness programs. However, the system as a whole remains tilted toward treatment. Providers are still largely reimbursed for what they do, not for the illness they prevent.
Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and value-based care models attempt to flip this dynamic by rewarding providers for keeping populations healthy. When aligned properly, these models can incentivize upstream investments that reduce downstream costs, such as better nutrition, housing, and preventive services.
Yet these models require robust data, trust, and time. The payoff isn’t immediate, and progress is uneven across states and systems. Still, the direction is promising. As the financial pressures on the healthcare system mount, prevention becomes not just good policy, but economic necessity.
Prevention Is a Quiet Force
The success of prevention is measured in absences — the heart attack that didn’t happen, the flu outbreak that never took off, the diabetic complication that was avoided. These absences are invisible, but their value is immense.
A society that invests in public health is a society that saves money, increases productivity, and improves quality of life. But because the rewards are dispersed and delayed, prevention remains politically and financially underappreciated.
Healthcare systems are often judged by how well they treat illness. But in a truly rational, forward-looking model, the better question is how well they reduce it.
Prevention is not just a policy category. It’s a philosophy. One that prioritizes proactive illness reduction, and community benefit over isolated outcomes.
In healthcare economics, where every dollar spent is weighed against potential gain, prevention stands out as the rare investment that has the potential to deliver both health and financial return.
Casey Ma is an MBA and MPH student at Yale University, specializing in Healthcare Management. With a background in strategy consulting, marketing, and project management, her passion lies at the intersection of healthcare transformation and strategic problem-solving. She is an advocate for collaborative innovation and enjoys engaging with professionals who share her enthusiasm for the healthcare and marketing sectors.
Image: DALL-E
🔴 Found these ideas useful?
Sharpen your thinking