If the large studies are to be believed, you could save hundreds of thousands of lives and many billions in excess expenditure, because stable blood glucose shortens length of stay. People with diabetes alone account for 60% of hospital expenditure, so improving their care improves the system in a big way.
>People with diabetes alone account for 60% of hospital expenditure
That number seemed too large to be true, and I think you might be conflating some numbers...
The NIH study about Economic Costs of Diabetes in the US in 2022 [1] states:
>For cost categories analyzed, care for people diagnosed with diabetes accounts for 1 in 4 health care dollars in the U.S., 61% of which are attributable to diabetes.
So, 25% of health care (not hospital) dollars in the US are apportioned to people with diabetes, and in 61% of those cases, the cause is directly attributable to diabetes itself.
Similarly, an NHS study [2] revealed that 60% of overall diabetes spend goes towards diabetes-related complications.
Finally, this presentation [3] states that: "hospital stays involving patients with diabetes contributed almost $83 billion or 23% of the total hospitalization costs in the United States," and, of course, not all of those were directly diabetes-related.
Obviously that is still a staggering amount of money spent on diabetes every year, and represents a huge burden on our healthcare system. But 60% for all hospital expenditure just doesn't track from my cursory Google-ing here.
Why should hospitals be motivated to shorten stays and reduce expenditures when those stays and expenditures mean that their profits will increase? Why don't they want to maximize profits from the suffering of sick people?
Outside America, profit does not push every other motivation to the bottom of the pool to drown
Though for the more terminally American founders here: reception filling in intake forms and charging one-time admission and diagnostic fees for new patients may have better margin than doctors charging billable hours
