Culture and Medical Culture: Understanding to increase benefit and reduce harm

Culture is often understood, at least by that culture that is in a majority in a given place, as a characteristic of others. That is, we are “regular”, they have a culture. The greater the disproportion between the dominant group and others in terms of numbers, the less diverse a community is, the more this – incorrect – assumption prevails. In the 19^th century, before the work of Bronislaw Malinowski and Margaret Mead, who actually spent time in the places and cultures they were studying,  cultural analysis of the world by anthropologists was often done “offline” by what have become known as “armchair anthropologists”. All European, they ranked cultures from least to most civilized, and guess what: European, and especially Western European, cultures were always at the top!

It should be needless to say that this was wrong. In addition to all the examples that can be given of other non-European cultures were far more advanced (think the Arab world for mathematics and science, China for all kinds of things), all cultures are different. They do not just have “strengths” and “weaknesses”, or areas in which one is “better”, but differences which have developed to serve the needs that existed where they lived. Weather, for a start, makes a difference in the types of crops grown or how housing is designed. In addition, of course, different cultures share many similarities. This allows for, for example, religious ecumenism, in which folks of different religions can come together based upon the values that they share. In the US today, we have seen great advances in understanding not only that differences between cultures do not mean one is better than another, but also that similarities between people usually exceed differences. Recently, we are seeing great strides against racism, sexism, jingoism, and all the other “isms” that promote hatred instead of understanding. Unfortunately, however, we also see a backlash from people who feel threatened by the idea that other people, whom they have disparaged and discounted, are indeed their equals. This has gone beyond attitudes; it has led not only to violence, but to legislation enshrining prejudice, hatred, and discrimination. I hope this will get better, but it might get worse first.

One way that we have on tried to address this issue in medical education has been discussions between small groups of students about how they see common phenomena in the world, in their communities, in families, and relationships. The more diverse a class is, the richer these discussions become and the more the students learn that what they think of as “regular” is in fact just as much a cultural belief as that of other people. Of course, this also can reveal assumptions that they may make about what is “normal” that are not normal for others, particularly regarding financial and socioeconomic issues. Or, for instance, whether the police are seen as your protectors or your persecutors.

This becomes an important entry point for examining medical culture, which certainly exists and carries its own beliefs and prejudices, as do most professions. These beliefs are no more, or less, “true” than sociocultural beliefs. Because medicine involves not only extensive interaction with other people who are not immersed in the culture but, even more, extensive power over the lives and health of those people, coming to grips with what you (and your teachers) believe because, well, we all believe it, rather than what is based in evidence, is important. This is more difficult because a big part of the socialization to a profession such as medicine is for a novice who is from outside that culture to learn the jargon, way of thinking, and indeed prejudices that characterize it, and this can have negative as well as positive results.

For example, our medical students usually enter perfectly capable of speaking English (and perhaps other languages) and conversing with others and communicating ideas and information. As part of becoming doctors, they learn new language, new terms, new acronyms, new meanings, and eagerly repeat them as evidence of their acculturation. Unfortunately, this can become an obstacle to communication with their patients, who do not speak this language. One example: a couple of sentences ago, I used “positive” and “negative” in their usual English senses of “good” and “bad”. However, when doing medical tests (lab, imaging, biopsies) a positive result is usually bad, and a negative result is good. But when a doctor, or student, informs a patient that their results are negative, it is common for the patient to react with fear, since this sounds like a bad thing. We urge them to say “normal”. Whew, that’s a relief!

Some other issues of medical culture are address in an Op-Ed by Robert Pearl in the Los Angeles Times of May 16, 2021, “How doctor culture sinks US health care”. A big part of Dr. Pearl’s critique in the distinct bias, not only in physician attitudes but in medical journal articles, towards intervention and procedures rather than prevention. This, he notes correctly, is very much tied to money, since physicians and hospitals and health systems (which are increasingly the physicians’ employers) stand to make much more money from them. Medical journals are more likely to print articles with positive (there is that word again!) results, demonstrating that a procedure had benefit, than negative results, demonstrating that, actually, compared to something – or nothing – else, something (or nothing) that was easier, cheaper, less interventive, and less dangerous, it had no better outcomes. Of course, anyone can see that knowing this information, that doing something is not worthwhile, is at least as important as knowing that something works well.

However, the inclination (or perhaps prejudice) among most physicians is to do something, to intervene; aside from making money, it makes them feel that they have skills, are justified, are important. Unfortunately, this is also an attitude quite prevalent among their patients, who want something done to help their problem – to cure their disease, or increase their lifespan, or improve the quality of that life, and in particular to ease their pain. But doing something does not always improve things, and can definitely increase the risk of harm. We need to know what works (and what doesn’t), and in what circumstances, and what the dangers are, and what the alternatives are, and their potential benefits and risks, and then have discussions together about what, in the specific circumstance a specific person is in, what would be the best choice for them.

This effort is likely to overlap with more traditional sociocultural and religious beliefs, which can have an influence on what a person thinks would be best for them. Communication around this requires care, and a real effort on the part of the medical professional to understand and to make their own thoughts clear and clearly expressed. This is even more complicated when, as is the case, physicians are from a pretty narrow slice of the American population, racially, culturally, and economically (and, again, a good argument for increasing its diversity). As in all situations where there is a power differential (and in medical care, the greater power lies with the physicians and health systems) it is incumbent on those with greater power to make the effort to understand those with less. And, at least as important, to not make decisions for and about people based on only your understanding – or worse, assumptions – about what they want, or are because of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc. Doctors, even when they are well-meaning (and all of them are not always) too often allow themselves to fall victim to the ecological fallacy, and confuse “condition X is more common in population Y” with “the patient is a member of group Y so probably has condition X”.

It is, of course, also very important to recognize that all interventions and procedures are not a bad idea; indeed, they are often the best treatment. And, also, that not everything sold as “preventive” is really so; plenty of tests and treatments called preventive are not proven to prevent anything. It is not easy to overcome prejudices and beliefs.

But understanding that we all have culture, and trying to not be bound by it and doing our best to understand that of others, is a good start.

Health Insurance on Demand: radical idea or just another scam?

 “It’s a radical idea.”

I like that. Oooh, what? Radical ideas are often good, even necessary. What is this one?

“On-demand insurance that lets customers buy some of their coverage only if and when they need it, similar to how TV viewers might rent a new release from Amazon instead of paying every month for a pricey cable package they rarely use.”

Huh? Could this be real? If it is such a good idea, why did no one think of this before? Maybe it could be the solution to the problem of the “individual mandate” that has folks so worked up. The argument for that mandate to buy health insurance, a key part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare), was that, to work, insurance requires a lot of people who are healthy have to pay in (via premiums) in order for those who have need to have their bills paid when they need it. This is the central principle of insurance underwriting. If not enough people who do not need to use the insurance buy coverage (in the case of health insurance, are healthy, at least that year), or if too many sick people buy it, rates have to be a lot higher. This is true for all types of insurance to work – car (most people have to not have accidents), homeowners (most people have to not have fires), life (most people have to not die in any given year). The practice of assessing risk, called underwriting, is very mathematically complex and there is an entire profession of actuaries who figure it down to the finest detail, but the general concept is simple: there needs to be enough money collected to pay the claims and pay the overhead costs of the insurance company – and, of course, in a for-profit system like the one we have -- make a healthy profit.

Health insurance on demand, buying insurance only once you get sick, is the subject of an Associated Press article that appeared in the NY Times on December 17, 2018. It sounds really exciting: ‘"It's the sort of thing we need entrepreneurs to be doing," said Robert Laszewski, a health care consultant and former insurance executive. "We haven't had a new idea in managed care in I don't know how long.”’ Yes! Finally a new idea! Based on the idea of picking the shows you want instead of subscribing to cable TV! Sort of the same thing. Except, really, not having TV doesn’t kill you.

Or maybe it’s not so new. After all, we have had something like this forever. It’s called “not buying insurance”. Then, when you get sick, you get billed for the whole thing. Of course, this is more than almost everyone but the richest people can afford, thus the key reason for health insurance. Back in the old days – before WW II – health insurance, or really illness insurance – was much less common. It was more like accident, or fire, or life insurance where you paid premiums in case something you really didn’t want to happen actually did happen. On the model of all insurance, you only “won” if you “lost” – if something bad happened to you. This “sickness insurance” came to be known as “major medical”; people paid for their doctor visits in cash (or chickens, or apple pies, or doing chores), but when they got really sick and needed surgery, needed to be hospitalized, then insurance kicked in.

Then, over the next couple of decades, several things happened that together made health insurance, not just “major medical”, a virtual necessity for everyone. More treatments became available for diseases that used to be untreatable; often these were very costly to treat, and required hospitalization and expensive drugs, imaging, and surgery. The causes of many diseases began to be elucidated; perhaps the most significant was the impact of smoking. The first paper identifying smoking as a cause of lung cancer appeared in 1950; in 1964 the Surgeon General’s report made this connection, and warning labels began appearing on cigarette packages in 1965, becoming Surgeon General’s warnings in 1970. High blood pressure (hypertension) only became identified as a disease, a risk factor for heart attack and stroke, in the late 1950s and 1960s. Remember that President Franklin Roosevelt died as a result of a stroke caused, we now understand, by his extremely high blood pressure – but in those days even the President didn’t get treated for hypertension, because it wasn’t recognized as a disease (and there weren’t any drugs for it).

People began to want not only the treatment for diseases that were formerly untreatable but also for early diagnosis of, and treatment of, conditions (like hypertension) that might be asymptomatic but might put them at risk for “the big one”. New diseases, and treatments for them, began to be discovered; indeed, a cynic (me) might say that yesterday’s ‘crock’ (medical slang for a person with imagined symptoms) became today’s sick person once their symptoms were associated with a disease – usually because someone found a diagnostic test for it or drug to treat it, and now could make money selling it.

On July 30, 1965, President Johnson signed the Medicare Act, providing health insurance to those over 65 and the blind and disabled; Medicaid, providing (limited) insurance to a (limited number of) poor people soon followed. Despite vigorous opposition to Medicare by the AMA before it was passed, doctors quickly warmed to this program, since a large portion of the sickest (because of being oldest) population now had health insurance, and they (and their hospitals) could get paid for providing care. Costs skyrocketed. In 1972, Congress declared end-stage renal (kidney) disease to be a Medicare-qualifying condition. Renal dialysis went from being an uncommon intervention (which required consensus of nephrologists, psychologists, ethicists, etc., to determine that an individual’s future prospects made them deserving of it) to available – and paid for – for everyone with kidney failure. It turned dialysis centers into money machines, and nephrologists (who ran and owned many of them) from esoteric specialists to among the highest-earning physicians. It now costs Medicare over $30 billion a year, and some are questioning its ubiquity.

Let me be clear: Access to medical care, particularly prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, as well as kidney dialysis, is a good thing. People should have it. This includes the people who resist the most valuable of medical interventions such as not smoking and getting vaccines. The problem with medical care is the incredible cost, because no one who is making money on it is cutting prices, and the cost of insurance to employers and individuals (including premiums, copays, deductibles) is out of the reach of many. So now we have suggestions like “insurance on demand”, kind of a retro-solution. If it is a solution.

So how does Bind Benefits, the company featured in the article, do it? I don’t know – maybe they can do enough volume of business that they can negotiate lower rates with health care providers, thus meaning the customer pays less. But, then, this is how the insurance market already works – insurance companies work out deals with providers to pay less than the ostensible price. Only the poorest, without insurance, actually get billed the full retail price. And then, unsurprisingly, they can’t pay it, even with repayment plans. Many of their bills get sent to collection agencies that pay cents on the dollar to the original creditor for the opportunity to ceaselessly harass those with the greatest need.

Maybe it is a gimmick to attract the relatively healthy younger crowd. But it will still leave out the most vulnerable, the sickest, oldest and poorest, and the people who need it the most. This has always been the American way, sadly.

Here’s an idea: How about we put EVERYONE in the US on Medicare, and then fund it adequately? It costs more (but not as much more as you might think since the oldest and sickest are already in it), but we STOP paying insurance premiums, copays, deductibles. We limit the profit for the biggest parasites – drug companies, insurance companies (which might administer aspects of Medicare as they do now), health systems, some physicians? We stop pretending health care is like a fire in your house, something you want to be protected against but hope doesn’t happen, and recognize that it is something everyone needs. Not partial measures, like lowering the age for Medicare to 55, or asking people to buy in, or such. Just everyone in the same system, funded by our tax dollars (and a lot less of them than we are spending now). THAT would be an idea.

Everybody in, nobody out!

Does prevention save money? Is that the right question?

Does prevention save money? That is, does increasing access to preventive health care, doing more screening tests on a larger number of people, end up saving more money in the long term by reducing the cost of caring for the diseases that are prevented? This is the question asked in “Conventional wisdom clashes with data on health care savings”, by Margot Sanger-Katz in the New York Times on August 7, 2015. Ultimately, she answers “no”; indeed, in the online version dated August 5 that the link above takes you to, the article is titled “No, Giving More People Health Insurance Doesn’t Save Money”. Although it of course depends upon which preventive test we are talking about; “Counseling on contraception is one [of the preventive interventions that actually do save money] because the costs of prenatal care, delivery and pediatric care associated with an unplanned pregnancy are so substantial. But a lot of the preventive health measures that we tend to value a lot — mammography, screening for diabetes — tend to cost more than they save.”

The motivation for this article at this time is clearly the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which not only resulted in more people receiving coverage but mandated that preventive services be covered with no co-pay. President Obama made the case for it in part by talking about cost savings; Sanger-Katz quotes his 2009 address to Congress: “There’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.”  But, in fact, the discussion on the cost vs cost-saving from preventive services is not new; it has been frequently addressed in the literature. I have written about it several times, including two sequential posts on February 2 and February 9, 2009: Prevention and Cost and Economics and Disease Prevention, that cited two important articles on the topic, by Russell in Health Affairs[1] and by Woolf in JAMA.[2]

Sanger-Katz also cites two studies to support the argument, one old and one more recent. The famous RAND health insurance experiment from the 1970s and 80s that examined the impact of providing free (to the patient) access to health care, and the more recent Oregon health insurance experiment, begun in 2008, where poor people who were not already on Medicaid were lotteried into receiving health coverage or not. As she notes, in both studies, people who got free or low-cost coverage used more care, and thus cost more money. This, she notes, is consistent with basic economic theory, and ”…follows the pattern for nearly every other good in the economy, including food, clothing and electronics. The cheaper they are for people, the more they are likely to buy.”

But, while true, this misses the most important point. I have written about both studies before, I discussed the RAND study in Insurance company profits up and patient care down, May 11, 2011, and also refer to it in my discussion of Oregon, The Oregon Lottery: Far from enough, but at least they are doing something, July 19, 2012. In the latter, I quote from a June 22, 2012 New York Times article by Annie Lowrey, “Oregon Study Shows Benefits, and Price, for Newly Insured” that the study “has found that gaining insurance makes people feel healthier, happier and more financially stable,” and that “The insured were 25 percent less likely to have an unpaid medical bill sent to a collection agency and 40 percent less likely to borrow money or skip paying other bills in order to cover their medical costs.” This is the truly important point; people are getting medical care that they need, and are not having to cut back on their other basic needs (remember, these are poor people who don’t have lots of discretionary income) to do so. It echoes the findings of RAND, which were basically: yes, people who got free health care used more care, and indeed used more care that experts considered “inappropriate” (the classic “going to the ER for a cold” trope). But it also found that, and this is the real take-home message, they used more appropriate care; the corollary trope is going to the ER for chest pain, instead of staying home and hoping it would go away because you’re afraid to incur the cost. Free health care not only saved lives, it improved health.[3]

Ultimately, as Sanger-Katz points out, everyone dies. While provision of preventive services may save lives from one disease “…every time you prevent people from dying from one disease, they are likely to live longer and incur future medical expenses. The patient who benefits from the cholesterol screening may go on to develop cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer’s or some other costly illness.” This may seem obvious, but only if you think about it. In the 1980s, I was the only physician student in a class on Health Administration; the other students were planning on being health administrators but did not have a medical background. In one class, a student reported that we were likely to save money in the future because people were adopting healthier lifestyles – eating better, exercising more, not smoking as much. I pointed out that the opposite was true; this would mean people lived longer, and were more likely to develop long-term chronic diseases leading them to, for example, long hospitalizations and nursing home stays. If you truly wanted to save money, you’d encourage a high-cholesterol diet, no exercise, and 2 packs of cigarettes a day, so everyone would drop dead from a heart attack in their late 40s and be done with the cost.

This may sound macabre, but the point it makes is that cost is not the only issue. Examining the cost of providing free health care, as in RAND 40 years ago, or free preventive care, as in ACA, is a legitimate activity, but it is not the only, or even most important outcome. Access to health care, prevention of premature death, and improvement in quality of life are also critical considerations. Cost is important, but cost control cannot be measured in such crude ways as “does prevention save money”? First, as Sanger-Katz noted, different preventive services have stronger evidence behind them, and have a smaller “number needed to treat” (NNT) to have an impact on either cost or lives saved or quality of life (thus a high priority should be expanding access to contraception and contraceptive counseling). Second, there is the expansion of indications (reasons for doing a test), either through providing preventive services to a larger group of people than those shown to have the most benefit in studies, or by ratcheting down the “goal” for things like cholesterol, blood pressure, or blood sugar. These both have the same effect; they decreases the average long-term benefit while increasing the cost (and, not coincidentally, the profits for the manufacturers of the drugs and purveyors of the tests).

Third, and by far the most important in terms of both cost and justice, is the application of different standards to different populations, based on insurance status, wealth, and race. Performing preventive services for people who are unlikely to benefit is a problem, but performing much more expensive interventions for people who almost certainly won’t benefit just because they want them, and they (or their insurer) can pay for them, and because the providers doing them make money, is a far greater issue for cost. In addition, there is the question of “what is a fair price?” for any service, preventive or therapeutic, indicated or not (well, if not indicated, the fair price is zero!). In The high cost of US health care: it's not the colonoscopies, it's the profit, Jul 28 2013, I cited the work of Elisabeth Rosenthal of the New York Times, on this topic; she presents the wide variation in costs for this and other procedures. Thinking of the myriad types of preventive interventions as if they were all the same and of the same value is like thinking of “cancer” as one disease, rather than hundreds; it is simple and it is incorrect.

Ultimately, the cost issue is addressed by equity. Everyone should have access to all interventions that are likely to help them, and no one to those that will not. 

---

[1] Russell, LB, “Preventing chronic disease: an important investment but don’t count on cost savings”, Health Affairs, Jan/Feb 2009;28(1):42-45

[2] Woolf SH, “A closer look at the economic argument for disease prevention”, JAMA 4Feb2009; 301(5):536-8. (9th)

[3] Brook RH, et al., “Does Free Care Improve Adults' Health? — Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial”, N Engl J Med 1983; 309:1426-1434

Ebola, risk, and the public's health

My friend Allen Perkins received a text from his college-student daughter asking if she should be worried about the Ebola virus. His reply, discussed in “Ebola virus and the dread factor” in his excellent blog, “Training Family Doctors” was “Are you considering moving to west Africa?” This was wise and profound fatherly advice, based upon an understanding of the epidemiology of disease. While is it obviously a serious problem in West Africa (particularly Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea), it is not in the United States. Many other things are much more of a threat in the US, including, as Allen points out, “death from bee stings” (100 per year in the US).

Ebola might someday become a significant problem in the US, but it is unlikely and is not now. Many other health problems are. College students like Allen’s daughter should be sure that they have all their recommended immunizations for diseases that can be prevented by vaccine, including HPV and meningococcus, a very serious and often deadly cause of meningitis that can become epidemic where young people live together in close quarters, like college dormitories (and army bases). Yet, many do not receive these immunizations for reasons that range from passively not getting it done (less of a problem in schools where it is required) to having beliefs, or having parents who have beliefs, that vaccines are dangerous and should be avoided (in some cases this can trump school requirements). They are, by the way, wrong. The net benefit far outstrips the risk. Having your child get meningococcal meningitis and die or have serious brain damage, or get cervical cancer, is not something you want.

But focusing on conditions over which we have little or no control, rather than the ones we do, is fairly epidemic in this country (and likely others). Dr. Perkins focuses on the “dread factor”, about how news reports (not to mention thriller movies) whip up fear about these diseases. On the other hand, mostly what we can do is fear them, while the diseases which we individually might be able to have an impact on would require us to have to maybe do something hard: change our diet, start exercising, stop smoking, not drink so much or at the wrong times. I have written in the past about a patient who had a terror of breast cancer, a disease for which she was not at an increased risk based both on her youth and lack of family history. On the other hand, she did not seem particularly worried about the health risks of her uncontrolled high blood pressure, smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, or having unprotected sex with several different men.

Most of us can see that this is not logical, and maybe even snicker a little about her poor decision making. But it is only a little extreme. Many, perhaps most, of us, could do a better job of eating right, of exercising, of not smoking or drinking excessively (which for many people is “at all”). If not Allen’s daughter, many of her classmates are at much greater risk from going out and getting drunk on a weekend night, increasing their risk of motor vehicle accidents, sexual assault, poor judgment in choosing voluntary sexual encounters, and long term habituation for those with a predilection for or family history of alcoholism, just for starters. But taking action to prevent such bad outcomes is hard, requires effort, and often means not doing things we like in the short term, such as eating tasty-but-unhealthful foods, drinking with friends, smoking when we are addicted to nicotine, driving when we (or the driver) is only a “little drunk”, or having to do unpleasant exercise. Or it can conflict with our self-image: wearing a bicycle or motorcycle helmet, eschewing doing things that our friends are doing. Worrying about things that we can do nothing about, like breast cancer or Ebola, may be a little irrational, but it is in some way comforting because if the bad thing happens we are an innocent victim.

In addition, there are actions a society can take, that could make even more of a difference from a public health, population health, point of view, saving more lives, but these require political will. Sadly, this is often more lacking than individual will. Guns are the prime example; many state legislatures and legislators make it a point of personal pride to advocate for there being no restrictions at all on what kind of guns (e.g., automatic weapons) and ammunition (e.g., armor piercing bullets) people can have or where they can carry them (everywhere, open or concealed). Helmets and alcohol regulation are other areas where opportunity for prevention is often missed. Car safety has been increased by car and highway redesign and tobacco has been increasingly regulated (against the opposition of the industry, it should be noted, in both cases) for the benefit of public health, but many opportunities remain.

Indeed, expanding health coverage to all those below 133% of poverty by Medicaid expansion continues to be opposed by those who want to be seen as against Obamacare. This may be irrational from a public health point of view, but in many states it is rational, if offensive, for being re-elected. The most unjust and inequitable part of it all is how the effects of poor public health policies most affect the most vulnerable, poorest, least empowered people in our society, or indeed any society. Public health education campaigns tend to focus on diseases that have well-funded advocacy groups and affect the majority population; a recent qualitative study of African-American women found that they were very aware of the threat of breast cancer, but hardly at all of stroke – a disease statistically more likely to affect them.

Speaking of public health, it is gratifying to see some newspaper coverage of Ebola that is not sensationalist or scary. “U.S. Colleges See Little Risk From Ebola, but Depend on Students to Speak Up”, by Richard Pérez-Peña in the NY Times, August 30, 2014, addresses the small but real risk that may affect colleges from students who have (unlike Allen’s daughter) actually traveled to West Africa. Even better is “Leadership and Calm Are Urged in Ebola Outbreak” by Donald G. McNeil, Jr., which presents a rational, thoughtful, public health approach, and discusses public health strategies which have been used in the past in major crises and are beginning to be implemented in West Africa. These strategies center around the use of local, respected experts who can effectively communicate with the people in their countries, rather than international aid agencies. The goal is to help people to utilize appropriate prevention and protection measures rather than panic. Again, as in the case of the other personal behaviors described above, this can be hard for people, especially when it contradicts cultural and religious values (such as how the dead are buried). But having voices who are local, who understand the culture, and have both medical/public health credentials and individual credibility, is extremely important. Of course, unlike the Ebola “scare” articles, these were both on page 8 of the newspaper, but have a more prominent position on that day’s Times homepage.

So what are the lessons? Understanding risk is not always easy, especially when an epidemic with a hugely high mortality rate threatens.  Doing something is harder than not doing anything, and it can thus be tempting to worry more about the things that we can’t do anything about rather than those we could reasonably take action on. The same is true for public health issues that need to be addressed at a societal level.

And, of course, it is always the most vulnerable who suffer the most.

Primary Care Contributes More than Money....

I have often written about why the US needs a comprehensive national health system to cover all of its people, and my preference for a single-payer system similar to that in place in Canada. I believe that this is necessary for our country to address its poor health statistics. You can’t have lots of people without financial access to health care and have a healthy country.  When financial obstacles exist, we have artificial and unnecessary suffering, pain, and death.

But having financial access to care is, although necessary, not sufficient. We need other changes in our health care system. For starters, we more primary care doctors and other providers, for another we need systems that encourage and reward quality of care, and we need to have everyone receive care that is need, no one receive care that is not needed, and have health, not profit, drive the system.

Unfortunately, this is not what we have. While a sensible health care system, such as that in most countries with better health outcomes than our own, is built on a broad base of primary care, with a much smaller number of subspecialists, and even less hospital (and even less tertiary care). Our system, or non-system as I have called it, is skewed toward high-technology, high intervention care, aimed at the top of the pyramid. Most of the resources are allocated there, and balanced on a relatively small number of primary care providers. As should be obvious, inverted pyramids are inherently unstable.

One reason for this inversion is the demand of people in the US, particularly those with good health insurance or lots of money, for more and more expensive, high-tech care. This follows from the general assumption that “if some is good, more is better”, and “if it costs more it must be better, and if it is better it is what I want” that pervades much of our culture. Unfortunately, those old saws are not true when it comes to health care. Frequently, less is better, and more is worse. This has increasingly been demonstrated with a number of ostensibly-preventive interventions that have been showed to both increase morbidity (because of false-positive tests that lead to dangerous but unnecessary intervention) and cost. These include PSA testing for prostate cancer (even the American Urological Association has come on board by not recommending this test for most men – AUA guidance cited in AAFP Smart Brief May 15, 2013; it should actually be for no men), mammography for breast cancer screening, and the never-had-any-justification-as-a-screening-test-in-asymptomatic-women pelvic exam (the part where the provider puts hands inside, as distinct from the Pap smear screening test for cancer of the cervix, Questioning the pelvic exam, by Jane Brody, New York Times, April 29, 2013).

Farther down the spectrum of health care interventions are the incredibly costly things we do to people at the end of their lives. Heroic things done that ultimately don’t make any positive difference, and often end up extending a poor quality of life, or have someone end their lives enduring continuous interventions, needle sticks, and harassment. Why do we do this? Maybe because we want it? Some of us do. A colleague relocated from Kansas to DC says that people in the East don’t seem to accept  that people die; she feels it is less of an issue in the Midwest, where farmers are used to animals dying, but I don’t know. I see it here. And, indeed, it is an extension of the observation by Marion Stone, the fictional hero of Abraham Verghese’s “Cutting for Stone”, that, in comparison to Ethiopia where he grew up and went to medical school, Americans seem to think of death as optional. But, of course, it is not.  Many Americans have come to realize that, and have advance directives limiting what is done to them. But some, or their families, keep bringing people whose bodies are trying to die, into the hospital where our interventional technology saves them – for the moment. Until the next admission, a month or a week or a day later. “We have created,” says an intensivist colleague, “a group of people who can only live in the ICU.”

But there is more. And that is that such high-tech, high-intervention, high-cost medicine makes money, for the doctors who do it and the hospitals that it takes place in. And, of course for the manufacturers of the devices that are used. This is why, in large part, we have a primary care/subspecialist imbalance, why the pyramid of health care is balanced on that knife-edge. If cardiac care makes the institution money, if cancer care or neurosurgery or orthopedics does, this is what those institutions want. These are the specialists that they will subsidize to be on their hospital staffs. These are the specialties in which teaching hospitals will voluntarily support residents and fellows, even if that creates an inappropriate mix of specialists for the community at large. I have often said that in medicine, unlike classical economics, supply drives demand as opposed to vice versa. But I have also said that, as insurers move to prospective payment, the former money-maker product lines become cost centers, and that primary care providers who can care for things themselves without lots of referrals will become profit centers.

There is already evidence that this financial situation is shifting. Health Leaders Media reports in a story by John Commins on May 20, 2013 that “A survey of hospital CFOs shows primary care physicians generated a combined average of $1,566,165 for their affiliated hospitals in the last year. Other specialties generated a combined annual average of $1,424,917, the lowest average in five years, data shows. Primary care physicians have emerged as key money makers for their affiliated hospitals and for the first time are generating more revenues on average than their specialist colleagues, a survey data from Merritt Hawkins (PDF) shows.” This has to be good for primary care doctors, and has to get the attention of both hospital administrators and subspecialists.

However, it may not necessarily be good for people’s health. I say this cautiously, because, as I think I have made clear above, I do not think that it is better to have more subspecialists doing more interventional procedures which do not improve the quality of life. But simply showing that primary care doctors generate more revenue for hospitals does not mean that things are that different; it may only mean that primary care doctors are referring more patients into hospitals for procedures. This is, in itself, not the goal.

There is a goal. The goal is improved health for the American (and all) people. The goal is everyone getting the care that they need that will benefit them, and no one getting care that will not benefit or might even harm them. The goal is the medical ethics principle of justice: that everyone has the same options for diagnosis and treatment open to them, based upon their disease and condition, and not their wealth. The goal is a society that provides the necessary basis for good health – food, housing, education.

We can achieve that goal. We have the resources. We just need the will.

The cost of health care: Prevention and Indication “creep”, drugs, and the Sanders plan

.
The cost of medical care is rising. Some of this is from actual new forms of treatment and new technologies that benefit the health of individual people, and sometimes of populations. Some of it is from the enormously inefficient (as well as inequitable) “non-system” of health care delivery and insurance that exists in this country. Some of it is from the aging of our populations, resulting in an increase in the group of people who have the most chronic diseases and thus the greatest health needs. In addition, those new treatments successfully keep people alive who would have died from their conditions in the past, allowing them to develop new and even more complex conditions. In the near future, some of the increased cost will be the result of the coverage, mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, “health reform”) of 30 million additional people, with their attendant pent-up health needs. And, of course, much of it is from gross greed and enormous profits being taken from the “health care dollar” by some by providers (hospitals, nursing homes and physicians), but also – particularly -- by insurance companies and drug and device manufacturers.

I have addressed many of these issues in the past, and will continue to do so. A recent blog (Insurance company profits up and patient care down, May 17, 2011) addressed insurance company profit, others have looked at the burden created by the aging population and the newly insured (e.g., Primary Care, Medical School Debt, and US Health Needs: Analysis from the Graham Center, May 30, 2011 ). Other blog posts have looked at the health insurance system (I have been, I hope, very clear in my endorsement of a single-payer system as the best method for providing not only equitable health coverage, but the platform for cost saving and quality improvement). Today, I would like to look at two others, the explosion of new treatments and technologies and their overuse, and the cost of pharmaceuticals.

Increased attention is being paid to the overuse of many procedures for invalid indications or in people who are not likely to benefit from (and may be harmed by) them. Rita F. Redberg’s Op-Ed piece in the NY Times “Squandering Medicare’s money”, May 25, 2011), discusses 5 procedures that fall into this category. These include screening tests --  colonoscopy on people over 75, Pap smears on women over 65, PSA screening for men over 75 (although note that I have often written that its indications are dubious in all men, e.g. October 27, 2009: PSA Screening: “One of Medicine's Great Success Stories"?). They also include several procedures for vertebral fractures, the use of cardiac stents rather than drugs in prevention of heart attack, and the implantation of cardiac defibrillators in patients who will not benefit (Redberg is a cardiologist). Medicare pays for all of these, and many of them, particularly the procedures, but also the screening tests (because of the procedures that are likely to follow positive screens) have significant risks. (See also “Sales Tactics on Implants Raise Doubts”, NY Times, May 31, 2011).

The same theme is addressed in a recent commentary in JAMA by Djulbegovic and Paul, “From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep.”[1] Although brief, it contains some concepts that might require explanation for those unfamiliar with research and epidemiology. Initially, they address 3 types of research: “Therapeutic and prevention clinical research is typically performed to address questions of efficacy (“Can intervention work in the ideal study setting?”), effectiveness (“Does it work, generalized to real-world settings and applied to individual patients?”), and cost-effectiveness (“Is it worth it and should it be paid for?”)” [my bolding]. They go on to observe that most research, particularly that funded by drug and device makers (but also by the National Institutes of Health, NIH), is in the first category, efficacy, and that, while there have been increasing calls for more effectiveness research, this is unlikely to happen for most of the clinical decisions in treatment and prevention, primarily because such studies are difficult to do and costly.

The result is that clinicians have to make decisions about the use of these tests and therapies in the real world and in patients whose characteristics (such as age, other co-existing illnesses, other treatments that they have been on, etc.) are different from those of the group studied in the efficacy trials. Clinicians also may use them to treat conditions – known as “indications” -- other than those that were studied and for which the drugs were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“indication creep”). If a drug is used for a condition (“indication”) for which it is not approved, it could be of benefit. However, it could also be of no benefit (but definite cost), and might even (not infrequently) cause harm. When screening tests are used in populations for whom they are not indicated, as those discussed by Dr. Redberg, as well as in the several blog posts about PSA and breast cancer screening (see March 15, 2011: Men’s Health? Women’s Health? Valid screening opportunities or “Hallmark Holidays”?, October 30, 2010: Breast cancer screening: conflicting evidence? what are the important questions for health?), we have “prevention creep”.

Doctors and other providers could, of course, choose to not use drugs indications or populations outside of those for which it was approved, and not use screening tests outside of the populations in whom it was studied. Djulbegovic and Paul, however, spend some time discussing why it is more likely that they will opt for screening a wider population than not, and why they will use drugs for treatment of conditions for which they were not approved (“off-label indications”). This last is particularly probable when other treatments have not worked, and someone (perhaps the drug company?) has suggested that the drug might work for this condition. This is because doctors are more likely to regret not doing something than doing something, despite the ancient injunction primum non nocere, “first, do no harm”. If the treatment doesn’t work, so be it; if it causes harm there may be regret, but it may be attributed to the underlying disease. If the treatment is not done, regret ensues because the physician thinks of what benefit might have occurred more than what harm may have befallen the patient. And, of course, while all recommendations to use drugs for “off-label” indications do not come from drug manufacturers, they obviously benefit financially from the wider use of the drug, and thus have little incentive to conduct or fund effectiveness, or certainly cost-effective, studies.

Which brings us to the cost of drugs. Anyone who is on drugs currently under patent (i.e., non-generic) knows their high cost. Generics are drugs which are the same as the original brand-name product but are usually much cheaper. We have heard about efforts to import drugs from Canada and other countries because they cost less. This was even suggested by members of Congress during discussion of the Medicare Part “D” drug benefit, which is bizarre since those drugs are often made in the US. They are sold in Canada at lower prices because of Canadian government regulation. In passing Part “D” such regulation of drug costs (using Medicare’s enormous purchasing power) was explicitly forbidden. (Who lobbied for that, do you think?) Drug companies say their costs are high because of research and development of new drugs. In fact most of their R&D costs are for “me-too” drugs – modifying a popular and big-selling drug made by another manufacturer, or their own drug that might be going off patent – so that they can get a patent. Then they spend far more than what they spend on R&D on marketing, to try to establish this new brand and get consumer loyalty. An example is when Prilosec®, omeprazole, went generic – and even over the counter, without prescription -- the manufacturer modified the formula slightly to be longer acting and began marketing “the purple pill”, Nexium®, no more effective.

A new proposal that would lower drug costs to US consumers by as much as 90% has been made by Senator Bernard Sanders (I, VT), as reported by Dean Baker in the HuffPost Business on June 11, 2011, Bernie Sanders Tries Some Clear Thinking on Prescription Drugs. Sen. Sanders essentially proposes that the government buy out all existing, and future, patents on prescription drugs, making them available at far lower cost. The cost of buying out the patents would be paid for by the enormous savings to Medicare on the cost of buying the drugs. These savings would be so great that, even after buying the patents, the government would save an enormous amount of money. It is a very good proposal, one that would be effective, and would compensate drug manufacturers as well as benefit the government and patients. Of course, the compensation would be less than the billions that big PharMa makes on selling these enormously highly-priced drugs, so they will certainly lobby – probably effectively – against it.

Our health remains hostage to the financial benefit of private corporations. Why should this surprise us, when all of our lives also are? The question is when are we, as health care providers and as citizens, going to decide that we will no longer allow their financial interest to stand in the way of quality and cost-effective health care.

---

1 Djulbegovic B, Paul A., From efficacy to effectiveness in the face of uncertainty: indication creep and prevention creep”, JAMA. 2011 May 18;305(19):2005-6..

Freedom abroad, health at home: experiments in preventive health care

.
First, we must celebrate the victory of the people of Egypt in ousting the 30-year dictator Hosni Mubarak, and we revel in the democratic character of both this peaceful revolution and that in Tunisia last month. We hope that all of the dreams and aspirations of the masses of people involved are realized – freedom of speech, freedom for women and minorities, freedom from hunger. Thinking and reading about it brings tears of joy and admiration for these brave people. It is truly inspiring and encouraging to see this part of the world moving in the right direction. I feel that it may be wrong to have a post that dilutes this excitement with discussion of other topics, but take comfort in the fact that the papers, magazines, and blogosphere are talking about little else.
...

Unfortunately, at the same time it is sobering to think about how much, in the US, we are moving in the wrong direction (see Bob Herbert, “When democracy weakens”, NY Times, Feb 12, 2011). Politicians elected, with money coming from the wealthiest corporations and individuals, on the platform of promising to create jobs, do nothing of the kind (see Robert Reich, “The recession isn’t over until the jobs come back”, Kansas City Star, Feb 12, 2011. At the federal level, to the extent Congress is doing anything, it is giving money away to the richest and taking away from poor and working people. State legislatures are also focused on eliminating support for poor people, as well as oppressing immigrants and banning gay marriage – or any rights for gay people (see Charles Blow, “Repeal, restrict, and repress”, NY Times, Feb 12, 2011). And, of course, on further restricting abortion rights. Indeed, there are those in Congress who wish to eliminate Title X funding for contraception. Given that contraception is the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate, this seems bizarre, but only if you are into “reality-based” policy making.

Where is the good news in our country? We all know that there are lots of good people out there, doing lots of good things. In health care, much of the positive news is people pitching in, volunteering to try to fill the holes left by a health care system that does not, despite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provide care for much of our population. One example is the JayDoc Clinic, an operation entirely run by students from the University of Kansas School of Medicine, featured in the Feb 12 Kansas City Star (“Student run JayDoc clinic serves the uninsured”). Great work, and a great article, but one result is going to be more people who are in need hearing about it, and further overwhelming the clinic. The JayDoc, like so many “safety net” clinics, is a “finger in the dike”, struggling to survive in providing basic care while billions are spent on what Don Berwick, currently head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and his colleague Brent James at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) call “rescue care”.

Meeting the basic health care needs of the really-needy is not only right and compassionate, but is likely to cost less (in dollars and pain) if it prevents serious illness later. Since this does not seem to be a focus of government, which is busy cutting taxes on billionaires like David and Charles Koch and cutting access to contraception, some progressive and thoughtful parts of the private sector have been creating models across the country. Many of these are detailed by surgeon and writer Atul Gawande in his article “The hot spotters: can we lower medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care?” (New Yorker, Jan 24, 2011).

Gawande examines several cities where efforts have been made to identify the sickest, neediest, and highest-cost-users of health care, and intervene to try to reverse or ameliorate the causes. Some of them, like the lead story of the program in Camden, NJ, are the result of hard and extended volunteer work, by Dr. Jeffrey Brenner and friends. Others, such as in Atlantic City, result from partnerships between existing institutions (in this case, a hospital and a union). None are the result of wise governmental leadership investing in these programs to reap a benefit of greater health and lower cost. In Red, Blue, and Purple: The Math of Health Care Spending, Oct 20, 2009, I discussed the implications of the fact that most people use little health care, and a small percent use most of it. Managed care in the late 1990s failed in part because it put major hurdles in the way of receiving health care for the large proportion of the population whose health care use accounted for a small percent of health care spending in any case.

The programs described by Gawande do the opposite; they identify the actual people who account for most of the health costs in these communities and provide services and support to help those people. In Camden, for example, 1% of the population – 1000 people – accounted for 30% of its costs. 900 people in two buildings (a nursing home and a low-income housing project) accounted for more than 4000 hospital visits and $200,000,000 in health care bills over a 6 ½ year period. And, as Gawande points out, Camden is not unique. There is no money for this from the public sector or insurance industry because it is being spent (in addition to insurance company profit and administrative waste) on “rescue care” for people with conditions that advanced so far because they never received sufficient preventive and primary care.

Public funds are also not being spent (indeed, as noted above, they are being cut) to support the myriad other “determinants of health”, social, economic, cultural and linguistic that are necessary for them to take advantage of preventive and primary care, to have the capability (Capability: understanding why people may not adopt healthful behaviors, Sep 24, 2010) of improving their health. Planning to achieve reductions in health care costs by “solutions” such as increasing copayments and deductibles so that people have “more skin in the game” are based on belief but not on facts. Gawande cites the experiences of benefit manager Verisk Health, which showed that such obstacles caused people to use less of all kinds of care – including primary and preventive care – until they finally got so acutely ill that needed to come to an emergency room, get admitted, go into an intensive care unit, so that costs in fact went up. One man “…had badly worsening heart disease and diabetes, and medical bills over 2 years in excess of $80,000. The man, dealing with higher co-payments on a fixed income, had cut back to filling only half his medication prescriptions for his high cholesterol and diabetes. He made few doctor visits. He avoided the ER – until a heart attack necessitated emergency surgery and left him disabled with chronic heart failure. The higher co-payments had backfired…” This outcome has been known for a long time; the RAND health insurance experiment in the 1970s and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1983[1] (see also: Joseph P. Newhouse, "Free for all?: lessons from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment", RAND 1993) showed that the opposite strategy – elimination of co-payments and deductibles -- resulted in higher utilization of health care; of both that which might be seen as “unnecessary” (colds) and that which was clearly necessary. And it saved money.

The interventions that have had success in Camden and other places were not “one size fits all”. Different people had different issues that required different interventions. Some were about poverty, some were about substance abuse or mental illness, some were about cultural misunderstandings or about language, and on and on. Interventions required more from nurse case managers for some people, social workers for others, physicians and nurse practitioners for others, and “health coaches” or promotoras for others. A lot of the latter; people who were familiar with the needs of the high-utilizer patients, who spoke their language, lived in their communities, and were often willing to “talk like [my] mother” to them.

And it is not always successful. But it is successful enough, far more successful than just pouring dollars into rescue care, that it needs to move beyond the limits that volunteers and a few forward-thinking institutions are constrained by. It needs to recognize the critical nature of teams, of integrating preventive and primary health care with basic social (and sometimes legal) services, with meeting core needs for food, housing and transportation that are all too often not even considered by policy makers. Funding is key; depending on volunteers in such efforts as these, or the JayDoc student–run free clinic will never come close to being a solution.

About Dr. Brenner’s program in Camden, Dr. Gawande writes “It remains unclear how the program will make ends meet”. In fact, these sorts of programs need to become the mainstream of health care and service delivery, and need to become the priority of federal, state, and local government.

[1] Brook RH, et. Al., “Does Free Care Improve Adults' Health? — Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial”,N Engl J Med 1983; 309:1426-1434.
.

Non-preventive Health Screenings: Common Sense Family Doctor

A good review of the (non-) value of many highly marketed screening tests (these are "sold" at health fairs) by Dr. Kenny Lin, the Common Sense Family Doctor.
http://commonsensemd.blogspot.com/2011/02/preventive-health-screenings-that-are.html#comment-form

Health is more than Medical Care

.
Bob Herbert’s column in the New York Times, January 23, 2010, “They still don’t get it”, is one of many recent pieces that articulately criticize the administration for pursuing policies that benefit the wealthy and the elite, and ignore the absolutely justifiable anger of the majority of American people. That anger is being stoked and ridden by the Republicans, as it was by Obama in 2008, because they are out of power. There is no question that, if the Repubs were in power, they would be even worse, and cater even more to that elite (ref: see administration of GW Bush, 2001-09.) One of the issues that Herbert takes on is health reform: “While the nation was suffering through the worst economy since the Depression, the Democrats wasted a year squabbling like unruly toddlers over health insurance legislation.” Herbert is not opposed to health reform, but rather the outrageous way that this sausage has been made: “No one in his or her right mind could have believed that a workable, efficient, cost-effective system could come out of the monstrously ugly plan that finally emerged from the Senate after long months of shady alliances, disgraceful back-room deals, outlandish payoffs and abject capitulation to the insurance companies and giant pharmaceutical outfits. The public interest? Forget about it.”

With the election of the 41st Republican senator – under Senate rules, 41 votes constitutes a majority in terms of blocking legislation – we have heard many opinions on what should happen with health reform. The Republicans and the right-wing, who, despite their opportunist populism stand firmly in the grasp of “insurance companies and giant pharmaceutical outfits” are predictably calling health reform “dead” and reveling in the possibility that the system won’t change at all. This, of course, is a disaster; the folks who voted for Scott Brown in Massachusetts because they were convinced by demagogues that they would lose their current health benefits will continue to lose them anyway, not because of health reform legislation but because that’s where it was headed – higher cost, lower benefits. Some progressives, including Paul Krugman (“Do the right thing”, January 22, 2010), and physician-writer Atul Gawande (in his Democracy Now! Interview with Amy Goodman on January 5, 2010), call for passage of the current plan because it will, in fact, benefit a lot of people. Krugman says the House should just pass Senate bill to avoid any further votes in the Senate, which might lose. There is a lot to be said for this position. Others, including those I respect most from Physicians for a National Health Program, call for scrapping this whole bill and passing a single-payer Medicare for All program, which is absolutely the right answer, but not going to happen. (Nonetheless, I will, and I urge everyone, to write their representatives every day demanding it!)

While I support single-payer health insurance as the necessary pre-condition for improving health care for the American people, it is also clear that the process of self-interest politics in the formation of the Senate and House bills (in which the self-interest of the most wealthy and powerful is the biggest influence) has moved the discussion so much to medical care insurance coverage and access that we lose sight of the ultimate goal, greater health. In an excellent “Perspective” in the New England Journal of Medicine, January 14, 2010, “Ranking 37th – measuring the performance of the US health care system”, Chistopher J.L. Murray and Julio Frenk review the 2000 World Health Organization rankings of health status in different countries in the world. They remind us that “It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy,” and that the probability of death for men 15-60 has dropped dramatically more slowly since 1974 in the US than in many other countries.

Murray and Frenk also remind us of “the vast number of preventable deaths associated with smoking (465,000 per year), hypertension (395,000), obesity (216,000), physical inactivity (191,000), high blood glucose levels (190,000), high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (113,000), and other dietary risk factors”. We may not see these numbers every day, but health professionals and policy people know (or should know) them. We have certainly seen calls from many sectors, from this blog to the President, for a realignment of funding priorities from expensive procedures to prevention, from high-tech subspecialty care to primary care, from huge expenses at the end of life to strategies that will extend healthy life, and these numbers emphasize how important those changes are.

But those changes only address health care, and more usually medical care. This can be a diversion, from other, maybe more important, policies that truly will promote health. Even if we can produce more primary care physicians (and other providers), even if we offer “pay-for-performance” type incentives for physicians to do “quality care”, even if we actually pay as much for spending an hour counseling and working with a person to stop smoking, change their diet, and exercise, as we do for a cardiac catheterization or colonoscopy, the problems listed by Murray and Frenk require behavioral change on the part of people. Doctors can help, by counseling, by prescribing drugs for the conditions (e.g., hypertension, diabetes) that may be drug-susceptible, but people themselves are going to have to be the ones who change their diets, exercise more, stop smoking, take those medications.

Please note that I am not one of those who wants to place the blame on individuals, and excuse physicians and other health professionals from their own responsibilities (“I told them to lose weight, to stop smoking, to exercise! They didn’t do it! They are not compliant!”). It is important, however, to look at these problems from a larger social perspective. In the paragraph above I purposely used the word “people”, not, as is popular, “individuals”. Because while individuals, if they are highly motivated enough (and this is helped by having higher income and education and social class) can change these behaviors -- and have, in many cases, such as the dramatic reduction in the prevalence of smoking, these are really societal issues. This sort of behavioral change is hard to do – stopping an addiction like nicotine is harder than heroin, but is nothing compared to changing your diet from foods that taste good (and yes, while to some degree poor food choices come from habit and culture, the fact is that sugar and fat taste good!) to those that are more healthful, to limiting intake of excess calories. And exercise is hard, not only when you are already fat, out of shape and a smoker, but when you are working 2 or 3 jobs, live in a neighborhood that is unsafe, and have to try to fit in taking care of your children.

Changing these health parameters is not going to happen solely from everyone having health insurance and access to medical care, paying physicians for “quality”, or increasing the number of primary care providers, or completely changing the premises of medical care reimbursement. It is going to require major societal change. Some has begun to happen – public smoking bans in many cities and states, calorie labels on fast foods in some cities, removal of high calorie snack and drink machines from some schools. But what it needs is not only for these actions to be universal, it will require much more. Stricter regulation of advertising of junk food to children, higher taxes on it, and less availability. The messages for eating healthful food need to be louder and more frequent than the messages to do the opposite. We have to ban insidious campaigns like “drink wisely” (i.e., "do drink"). And have strict limits on access to firearms. And we have to rebuild our communities to encourage not only purposeful exercise (“going to the gym”) but activity as a part of daily life: walking instead of driving to school, shopping, work.

Of course, for all of these changes, there will be powerful lobbies against it –even the easy ones (smoking bans, labeling) not to mention the generations it will take to significantly modify our built environment. And if you thought that the opposition to meaningful health care insurance reform was powerful, you ain’t seen nothing yet!
.