MANY AMERICANS lament the
high cost of U.S. health care, but console themselves with the thought
that, well, it's expensive because it's the best care available in the
world. It
sounds good, but it's not true.
At least, not when you look
at the results. How do the outcomes of our health-care system stack up
against our Western, industrialized counterparts in Canada and Europe?
In a recent Johns Hopkins study that measured death rates and other
indicators of health, the United States finished nearly last -- 12th
out of the 13 countries studied.
Some of our excess deaths
are likely a result of our high-tech orientation. In the report study,
"To Err Is Human," the Institute of Medicine estimates that between 44,000
and 98,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of medical errors.
Those numbers, while alarming,
do not take into account hospital deaths from medical intervention not
clearly associated with medical error. Several studies, taken together,
indicate that 225,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical intervention,
the largest component (106,000) a result of "non-error adverse" side effects
of medications.
Thus, medical interventions
cause 10 times the number of homicides in the United States each year and
trail only cancer and heart disease as the leading killers of Americans.
Not only are we paying more
for health care but a lot of what we buy directly leads to adverse affects
for patients.
Why? Money has a lot to
do with it.
Doctors who do procedures
and tests earn more than those who don't; drug companies make more money
if more drugs are prescribed; medical instrumentation companies, the makers
of the latest testing devices, want more tests done, not less.
We're doing too much of
the high-cost specialized medical
interventions at the same time that more than 40 million Americans
are denied access to health insurance. And many of the rest are deprived
of an opportunity to build a strong relationship with a doctor of their
choice, someone who would coordinate all their care, because of managed
care and the way our health insurance system works.
Another common misunderstanding
about health care is the notion that in other countries -- for instance,
in England or Canada -- patients have free health care, but must wait months
and months to see a doctor.
That is true only for elective
surgery. Otherwise, patients see their primary care physician quickly and
often, leading to a system of health that focuses more on prevention and
early care and less on drastic medical interventions that run the risk
of errors and adverse effects.
True primary care has never
taken root in the United States, despite the idea of the old family doctor
making house calls.
The leading medical schools,
including Harvard and Johns Hopkins, do not have training for family physicians,
who are the mainstay of primary-care practice in most of the other wealthy
countries.
Our health care system is
rooted in specialists and, as some have said, specialists are doctors who
look for zebras rather than horses because that is what they are trained
to do. To make sure that a patient is not a zebra, specialists do a lot
of unnecessary testing.
Critics often cite Americans'
own bad behaviors as explanation for our poor health, when compared with
other countries. But the truth is our smoking and heavy drinking rates
are among the lowest of those in countries with better health.
The United States spends
$1.1 trillion a year on health care, nearly $4,000 per person, according
to 1997 figures (the latest available). By comparison, Switzerland, Canada
and the United Kingdom spend $2,547, $2,995 and $1,347 per person, respectively.
For the money we spend on
health care, we really should be the healthiest people in the world, but
we're not. There's a lot that can be done to change this, but it won't
happen over night.
People must first recognize
this as a problem, which is no small task. Not when, at every turn, Americans
are being told they ought to try the latest MRI or have the newest drug.
The next thing that needs
to happen is for doctors to be more accountable for what they do. For every
test done, every procedure performed and every drug prescribed, data ought
to be gathered and analyzed, with this in mind: Did the patient get better?
Were there side effects? These data are easy to collect and examine and
this process ought to be part of every practice.
Finally, we have to persuade more people to become
primary care physicians, and we have to train them better -- if we ever
expect to get what we pay for in health care.
Barbara Starfield, a physician and health services researcher, is university distinguished professor at the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Medicine.
Copyright 2000 Baltimore Sun