Is purchasing a medical proceedure the same as buying a car?

I would argue no, for several key reasons.

First, a medical procedure’s success depends heavily on patient participation. The outcome hinges on whether patients follow their physician’s instructions, avoid harmful foods or activities, commit to their rehabilitation, and make necessary sacrifices for optimal recovery. A car, by contrast, operates on a predictable maintenance schedule—oil changes every 7,000 miles, new tires at 50,000 miles—and doesn’t require active participation each time you get behind the wheel to function properly.

Second, evaluating medical outcomes is inherently subjective, shaped by individual expectations and varying standards of success. A tangible good like a car, however, has objective, measurable qualities that remain consistent regardless of who’s assessing it or observing it.

Finally, medical procedures carry inherent risk. Unlike most purchases, where you start at a baseline and gain utility, healthcare interventions don’t guarantee positive outcomes. A procedure can result in complications requiring additional interventions, meaning you could begin at zero and end up worse off. There’s always the possibility of a negative outcome, which fundamentally distinguishes healthcare from consumer goods.

For these reasons, healthcare tends to be heavily influenced by social groups. Peer pressure encourages people to take care of themselves. Role models who demonstrate how to go the extra mile can influence and encourage patients to do the same. The extent of care may be directed in part by group expectations. But, the most significant risk with this over a car or other tangible goods, is that lack of care or poor care can cause the patient to go backwards and incur even more costs both to the body and the pocketbook.