Prevention is better than cure. Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventive measure. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

When it comes to healthcare policies, there is always a substantial disparity in what should be prioritized. Spending on preventive measures in comparison to expanding treatment strategies,

while

more expensive, leads to better long-term outcomes. That being said, not everything can be prevented which is why having a balanced approach is all the more important.

Prevention

consists of several steps.

Therefore

it is a strong tool that when used correctly, can lead to several beneficial outcomes, one of which is the disease’s eradication. Even though

this

method requires a wide range of resources and pre-prepared infrastructure, the benefits not only are applicable to chronic diseases but

also

to acute illnesses

such

as chicken pox and polio. An important aspect of

prevention

is education. Education, when compared to other medical methods requires less budget and has a superior outcome since even the best medicine seldom results in a total cure.

It is clear that

when possible,

prevention

and education should be the first choice. Treatment,

on the other hand

, is best suited where

prevention

can’t play an important role.

For example

, in common viral infections, which

due to

their quick changing nature can’t be prevented. There is

also

the factor of cost and effectiveness. Preventing an illness

that is

quite rare isn’t financially justified

while

controlling it might be a better idea. What is the

overall

result? Based on the presented argument a higher proportion of the health budget should be allocated towards

prevention

: the long-term benefits of which are essential for a perfect healthcare system.