Drink more? Do more prostate cancer screening? I don't think so. But be careful about falls!

If the malignant lies and disinformation coming from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFKJr) and his minions, whom he regularly replaces if they are too inclined to make decisions based on truth and science (see Susan Monarez, head of CDC for less than a month) were not enough, his psycho – but totally dangerous -- baloney regarding vaccines and other health issues provides cover for the re-emergence of other potentially dangerous “health” recommendations. This is par for the course for this administration, which is entirely focused on distracting us from important issues by focusing our attention on other things, brush fires (or sometimes major conflagrations). Trump is quite willing to arrest, brutalize, imprison, and deport people, to start wars across the globe, or whatever it takes to keep the Epstein files – which must contain truly damning information about him – from being made public. 

In the area of health this re-emergence has not been of the major blaze type, certainly nothing compared to the evil of RFKJr’s opposition to, discouragement of, and even blocking vaccines, but more of “well, we have an axe to grind and let’s bring it back out now that we have cover”. Who, after all will worry so much about the issues I address below when they can worry about the return of polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, H. influenza, Covid, etc. And maybe even smallpox! But there have been several recent articles covering health issues which should be already settled. But, heck, if vaccines are not settled, why should these be?

On Sept 2, 2025, the NY Times Roni Caryn Rabin reports that Reduced Screening May Have Led to Rise in Advanced Prostate Cancer Diagnoses,  and follows that with the subhead “Changes in screening recommendations over a decade ago may have inadvertently resulted in later diagnosis of the most common cancer in men, a new study has found.” It sounds pretty scary, as it goes on to report that Black men are the least likely to be screened for prostate cancer and the most likely to die from it. Prostate cancer is being diagnosed at a later stage and the implication – no, the direct assertion in the article – is that it is because of a recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) which in 2012 began discouraging the use of routine screening with PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen). The Times article, and the article it is based on, from CA: A cancer journal for Clinicians, and the comments of the chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society and one of the article’s authors, Bill Dahut, say “The pendulum may have swung too far in one direction, where we were afraid of overtreatment, and now we’re not finding these cancers early on, when they can be treated and are more curable, and we’re more likely to find metastatic disease that is not curable.” 

This conflates diagnosis of cancer at later stages with (implicitly) increase in death from prostate cancer. Well, doesn’t that make sense? Except that what makes sense is not always true. There is no data in the article that says more men are dying from prostate cancer, only that they are being diagnosed with further advanced cancer. Dr. Dahut says that finding the prostate cancer earlier would make it more curable, but if this were true, the decrease in screening would not only have led to cancers being diagnosed at a later stage, but in an increase in deaths from prostate cancer. How come it didn’t? There are basically two types of prostate cancer: the kind that kills you and the kind you die with, but not from. Medicine has yet to be able to find a test that can identify which kind you have. If diagnosing the kind that kills you earlier can make it curable, that’s great – but then we would see more deaths from prostate cancer as a result of not screening, and we don’t. What has historically happened is that the other, more indolent, kind has been treated and physicians have claimed “cures” – even though men don’t die from it without treatment. But they do suffer the morbidity of treatment (i.e., impotence, incontinence, radiation cystitis, etc.) This, along with the poor performance of PSA as a screening test for prostate cancer, is what led the USPSTF to recommend against screening. This issue has been addressed a number of times over the years on this blog (PSA Screening: What is the value?, March 21, 2009, PSA Screening: “One of Medicine's Great Success Stories"?, Oct 27, 2009,  PSA redux: The USPSTF finally recommends NOT getting it!, Oct 14, 2011, Prostate Screening and the Public’s Health, July 12, 2015, as well as other posts on the benefits – or not – of cancer screening), and essentially, nothing has changed. It is terrible that Black men die from prostate cancer. It is terrible that anyone dies from prostate cancer. If screening saved lives we should do it. But this article presents no new evidence that lives are being lost that could be saved.

A few days later (Sept 5, 2025) the Times had an article by the same reporter titled Federal Report on Drinking Is Withdrawn with the subhead “The upcoming U.S. Dietary Guidelines will instead be influenced by a competing study, favored by industry, which found that moderate alcohol consumption was healthy.” Yup. Favored by industry. Not only were the guidelines withdrawn by HHS and thus not, as planned, presented to Congress, but HHS promotes a “competing report” by a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that “came to a conclusion long supported by the industry: that moderate drinking is healthier than not drinking”. Yay for the alcohol industry! Of course, “Some panelists came under criticism for financial ties to alcohol makers,” but what the heck. It is perhaps surprising, as the article points out, that RFKJr’s MAHA (“Make America Healthy Again”) campaign does not include anything about the use of alcohol – or, even more amazingly, tobacco! When we don’t like the message, we kill the message (and sometimes the messenger), especially in the current administration. But despite the fact that “Science Over Bias, an industry-supported advocacy group, faulted the alcohol intake study for bias: “The Dietary Guidelines should be guided by a preponderance of sound science, not the personal ideologies of a handful of researchers,” it is the industry’s position that is based on bias rather than on evidence. With regard to physical health (not short-term mental health), there is no amount of alcohol that is good for you, and any amount is a little bad. No alcohol is better than moderate alcohol, except for the financial interests of the industry and the scientists on their payroll.

On a somewhat different issue regarding health, not about controversy (screen or do not screen for prostate cancer? Drink alcohol in moderation or not at all?), is the Times article from Sept 7 by Paula Span titled Why Are More Older People Dying After Falls? It doesn’t provide a definitive answer, but strongly implicates prescription drug use (“Some researchers suspect that rising prescription drug use may explain a disturbing trend.”) It’s important. Falls are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people. You can break your hip or your head, you can get a concussion or a brain bleed or die. No joke. The association with prescription medication is legitimate, especially certain ones, called FRIDs, or “fall risk increasing drugs”, that are more likely to cause falls though inducing drowsiness, dizziness, drops in blood pressure, etc. Older people are more likely to have more diseases and be on more medications to treat them, and they are also more sensitive to the side effects of these drugs. (Note that drugs do not know which of their effects are “side effects”; we define them as the ones we don’t like!) And they are more likely to suffer serious injuries from a fall. The take-away message is that physicians should carefully review the medications that their older patients (actually all patients) are on, make sure that there is a need for them, and that there is not another less risky (less FRID) drug that could be substituted. Psychoactive drugs “like benzodiazepines, opioids, antidepressants and gabapentin — that act on the central nervous system” should be especially assessed for need, with particular emphasis on the use of more than one drug with similar side effects that can lead to greater risk. The message should not be “stop taking my drugs because the pharmaceutical industry is greedy and trying to drug us all”. Sure, they ARE greedy, and we shouldn’t have to pay so much to them, but that is another issue. They also make drugs that are effective and in standardized doses (unlike “natural” herbs). And often it is the drugs that people like most (because they relieve pain and/or make them feel better) that are most likely to be FRIDs. Exercises to increase strength and balance are important. And, if the risks still cannot be significantly reduced, people may have to modify their lifestyles. For example, it may be necessary to stop walking a big dog.

These are 3 different issues. I included the first two, prostate cancer screening and alcohol use, because they represent efforts to peel back science-based policies that may have been deleterious to the profits of industry, which is like many of the policy changes across the administration over the last 8+ months. The falls issue is a little different; here the concern is to address the risks to the extent possible without overreacting and stopping all your medications!

Medicine and science are complex. But findings can be skewed to fit an agenda, and when that agenda is corporations making more money, a little skepticism is wise.

Outrageous behavior by hospitals harms Americans' health to make money

The article in the NY Times (June 1, 2023) titled “This Nonprofit Health System Cuts Off Patients With Medical Debt” carries the subhead “Doctors at the Allina Health System, a wealthy nonprofit in the Midwest, aren’t allowed to see poor patients or children with too many unpaid medical bills”. That sounds bad. It is bad. It is disgusting. It is reprehensible. But it is only one example of the extreme lengths many “non-profit” hospitals go to in order to maximize their income (their “non” profit!) at the cost of limiting care to people.

I don’t know how many hospitals, hospital chains, or “health systems” have gone as far as Allina in explicitly refusing to see patients, but most of them go as far as they think they can – and maybe tiptoe over the line. The article states that “Many hospitals in the United States use aggressive tactics to collect medical debt. They flood local courts with collections lawsuits. They garnish patients’ wages. They seize their tax refunds.” This is, unsurprisingly, most prevalent among those that can do it, those that are wealthy, those that are in urban or suburban areas where they can make money taking care of insured people. (A different calculus informs the often-marginal rural hospital.)

It is, in theory, possible to have two different worldviews regarding this situation. One (mine) is that the main purpose of health care, hospitals, doctors, etc., is to improve the health of the population, not to make money. To the extent that the pursuit of money gets in the way of (or explicitly blocks) caring for the health of people, it is wrong, unethical, and should be condemned. Another possible view, however, is that the business of any business (making widgets, providing income tax services, flogging corporate interests on the internet) is to make money, and that healthcare is just another business, and if some people can’t afford it this is no different from someone not being able to afford a car. I do not believe this, and think it is a morally vacuous position (and, more important, one that actually hurts people), but it is popular in some circles. Folks cite the maxim attributed to economist Milton Friedman that the only responsibility a corporation has is to make profit for its shareholders.

But wait – these are NON-profits! They do not HAVE shareholders! They do have Boards of Directors and (very) highly paid management teams, but they don’t pay taxes. Because they are non-profits! The reason that they don’t is because, under the law, they are expected to provide “community benefit”. While such systems often try to claim that they are doing so by occasionally sponsoring low-cost events such as health fairs where you can get your blood pressure or blood sugar checked, that is not what the requirement actually intended. The Times article correctly states “Nonprofit hospitals like Allina get enormous tax breaks in exchange for providing care for the poorest people in their communities.” That means taking care of people who have need, and not pursuing ANY of the gross collection tactics, not to mention refusing care. “But a New York Times investigation last year found that over the past several decades, nonprofits have fallen short of their charitable missions, with few consequences.” Put simply, these non-profit hospitals are given very large benefits (no taxes) because they are supposed to care for those with need, for the poor, but then they do not. But they keep the money.

These non-profit hospitals (and systems), run by finance people and accountants, operate as if they were for-profits, seeking to maximize income just as much as the for-profits do. Not having to pay shareholders, they can pay huge salaries to management, and accumulate enormous bank balances. In fact, this is an incredible competitive advantage – if you are a for-profit, you have to pay taxes! As a result, most for-profit hospitals in large urban markets cannot, and do not seek to,  compete with non-profits, and are found primarily in niche markets, for example in subspecialty hospitals providing particular kinds of procedural care to well-insured people.

Not that I am endorsing overtly for-profit health care. It is also slimy and disgusting, meeting some needs of some people and openly refusing care to others. The pursuit of profit and money is the root of the failure of our health system to do what most of us think it is there for: to improve health. However, non-profits operating in this sector get huge government (meaning taxpayer!) subsidy for doing – things that they do not do, do not want to do, and will take every legal (and often extra-legal) avenue to avoid doing. Indeed, in addition to not paying taxes they get great financial payments from other government programs, such as the 340B drug program, often worth tens of millions (see "Non-profit" hospital systems behaving worse than for-profits: No end to the scams, October 1, 2022).

If there is anyone left who is still taking evidence-free issue with the idea that the US health non-system is a failure at providing health, take a look at this recent piece from the Washington Post by Steven Woolf and Laudan Aron. Yes, it is an “Opinion” piece, but it is full of facts (see graphic) and backed up by the work of the National Academy of Medicine in its report “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health”. Since 1980, when the life expectancy of Americans was in the lower half of wealthy countries, it has slowly dropped so that by the early 2000s it was the lowest, and well before COVID arrived, had plateaued while that of other countries continued to rise. Almost all countries took a “life-expectancy” hit with COVID, but for most it was short-lived and has since rebounded. Except the US, where it has just started to drop a little more slowly.

 

Life expectancy is not the only measure of health system function or success. However, there is no accepted measure (deaths of middle-aged people, infant mortality, maternal mortality, years of productive life lost, etc. etc.) in which the US does not lag its peers, and often poorer countries. Unless you think the provision of boutique specialty care to wealthy people (including foreigners) is somehow a measure of health system success.

Woolf and Aron cite the National Academy report which lists a number of reasons why the US does poorly:

(1) unhealthy behaviors, such as our diets and use of firearms;

(2) inadequate health care and public health systems;

(3) poor socioeconomic conditions;

(4) unhealthy and unsafe environments; and

(5) deficient public policies.

They note the last is most important, including failure to address basic human needs for food, housing, education, and jobs. The continuing effects of racism. The failure to have an adequately funded public health infrastructure.

The National Academy did not look at the fact that our gangster-capitalist system has taken over health care as a cash cow to have money extracted and only incidentally (when convenient and profitable) provide health care, but this too is a clear failure of public policy.

If hospitals, non-profit or for-profit, are not providing all the health needs of our people, rich and poor, they must be forced to do so, by public policy. They should be provided with a negotiated, global, annual budget for operations (and a separate one for capital, so they don’t milk patients to make money to expand) by a national health system. And be held to it.

Addressing the problem of greedy hospitals, the pursuit of money rather than health, will not solve our health problems. Not only does it leave the other parasites, insurance and pharmaceutic companies, it leaves all the other societal inequities cited above, that also must be aggressively acted on.

But it is a necessary step, and a good start.

Decreasing life expectancy in the US: A result of policies fostering increasing inequity

Four years ago, in 2015, economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton published a landmark article in which they documented decreasing life expectancy for white Americans, specifically those aged 45-54, which I discussed on November 14, 2015 in  Rising white midlife mortality: what are the real causes and solutions? This was somewhat shocking data, for it was the first time in decades that a decrease in life expectancy for a group in the US was seen. For a century, life expectancy had been rising.

Although the decrease in life expectancy was in whites of middle age (and lower income), and especially for low-income women (amazingly, low income women born in 1950 had, at the age of 50, a lower life expectancy than their mothers born in 1920!), it was important to remember that life expectancy for African-Americans and some other  minority groups still fell far short of that for whites. This decrease in life expectancy was not the case for other developed countries; it is a uniquely American characteristic – and obviously not a desirable one.

It is, thus, all the more depressing to have a comprehensive new study that finds that not only white people, but all Americans in the 25-64 year old age range have increasing mortality. “Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017”,[1] by Steven H. Woolf and  Heidi Schoomaker, just published in JAMA, found that

Between 1959 and 2016, US life expectancy increased from 69.9 years to 78.9 years but declined for 3 consecutive years after 2014. The recent decrease in US life expectancy culminated a period of increasing cause-specific mortality among adults aged 25 to 64 years that began in the 1990s, ultimately producing an increase in all-cause mortality that began in 2010. During 2010-2017, midlife all-cause mortality rates increased from 328.5 deaths/100 000 to 348.2 deaths/100 000. By 2014, midlife mortality was increasing across all racial groups.

This new study confirms that a large part of the increase in middle-age mortality comes from what Case and Deaton called “deaths of despair”: suicide, drug overdoses, and alcoholism. But there was also a large contribution from “traditional” diseases such as heart disease, chronic lung disease, and stroke. People suffering from these conditions may increasingly be unable to receive adequate medical care for them, because they are uninsured or underinsured or because their out of pocket costs in co-payments and deductibles are unaffordable for them, and even because they live in the wrong places, rural areas far from hospitals. This is very different situation from that in other developed countries which, essentially universally, have universal health care. The New York Times article by Gina Kolata and Sabrina Tavernise quotes Dr. Woolf as saying “The whole country is at a health disadvantage compared to other wealthy nations…We are losing people in the most productive period of their lives. Children are losing parents. Employers have a sicker work force.”

Dr. Woolf also notes that “death rates are actually improving among children and older Americans,” unsurprisingly, “because they may have more reliable health care — Medicaid for many children and Medicare for older people.” Yes. Having health coverage and being able to access health care may actually make a difference, especially with treatment of chronic disease. And if there were adequate treatment for mental health and substance abuse, it could be even better.

Of course, increasing mortality is not just about access to health care. It is mainly about the overall lives many people in the US live. Working-class and formerly-working class people who often no longer have jobs, or at least good jobs, and have given up hope of getting them and re-creating their vision of the American dream, have joined the long-term disenfranchised, underserved, and underemployed. This is a common narrative provided for white working-class people who have turned to Donald Trump because of his (empty) promises to bring back manufacturing and mining jobs to the US. And it is the lack of any reasonable set of social services to prevent large swaths of the American population, of all races and colors and ethnicities, from going hungry, or being homeless or inadequately sheltered, or having heat in the winter and education (and thus hope) for their children.

This is another major issue; the US spends a much lower percent of its GDP on social services of all kinds than do other Western nations. If we add in the money spent on “health care” the gap narrows, but most of that money is being spent on medical care, and medical care often for those with far advanced conditions and a lot of money and/or good insurance, and much of that expense going into health system, insurance company, and pharmaceutical company profit. This was documented by Elizabeth Bradley and Lauren Taylor in 2011 (see To fix health care, help the poor, NY Times and my blog post To improve health the US must spend more on social services, December 18, 2011).

Dr. Woolf says “We need to look at root causes. Something changed in the 1980s, which is when the growth in our life expectancy began to slow down compared to other wealthy nations.” He, of course, knows what changed, and so do we. It was the election of Ronald Reagan and the rapid elimination of the social safety net that had developed in the New Deal, and a move toward greater economic aggrandizement of the already richest and most powerful at the expense of the poorest and least empowered, a trend that accelerated under both the Bush administrations, was only slightly slowed by the Clinton and Obama administrations, and has taken off full steam under our current President.

Yes, there is also an opioid crisis, brought on by not just despair but aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies such as the Sacklers’ Purdue. Yes, there is, as the Times article notes, a dramatically higher mortality with powerful synthetic opiates like fentanyl. But this is not a root cause. When you died from an episode of pneumonia complicating your lung cancer, it is misleading to say your death was from pneumonia; the real cause was your lung cancer. Ultimately all deaths are caused by cardiopulmonary arrest (your heart and lungs stopping working), but this is a mechanism, not a cause. Similarly, opioid deaths are the mechanism of death, but the cause is a very inequitable and unjust society. And this is the biggest difference between the US and other wealthy nations.

Ironically, some would say, the parts of the US that are most affected by the increasing death rates are those that not only supported, and are likely to again support, President Trump, but those that provided – and may again provide – the electoral vote margin for him. In addition to northern New England (Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine), the hardest hit states are Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, and Kentucky. A third of all the excess deaths in the US are concentrated in four Ohio Valley states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Indiana. One commentator notes that there are “bright spots”: ‘Life expectancy in the coastal metro areas — both east and west — has improved at roughly the same rate as in Canada.’ But I don’t see this as a bright spot, I see the desperation and death and increasing mortality in the rest of the US as the sore spot. We could do better, but we haven’t; as I noted above even the 16 years of Democratic presidency (admittedly, often with a GOP-controlled Congress) have been more focused on meeting the desires of the wealthiest than the needs of most Americans.

We need to do better, and despite the fact that the Trump administration is the least likely to do so in recent history, it may well be re-elected because of the failure of “mainstream” opposition to come up with effective solutions.

---

[1] Woolf SH and Schoomaker H, Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017. JAMA. 2019;322(20):1996-2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.16932