This is one of the most sensible medical stories I've come across, and by two authors in Vermont associated with the VA Hospital in White River Junction. Well worth the time to read it and consider the implications for each of us personally and for health care in general. It concludes:
"The epidemic of diagnoses has many causes. More diagnoses mean more money for
drug manufacturers, hospitals, physicians and disease advocacy groups.
Researchers, and even the disease-based organization of the National
Institutes of Health, secure their stature (and financing) by promoting the
detection of “their” disease. Medico-legal concerns also drive the epidemic.
While failing to make a diagnosis can result in lawsuits, there are no
corresponding penalties for overdiagnosis. Thus, the path of least resistance
for clinicians is to diagnose liberally — even when we wonder if doing so really
helps our patients.
As more of us are being told we are sick, fewer of us are being told we are well. People need to think hard about the benefits and risks of increased diagnosis: the fundamental question they face is whether or not to become a patient. And doctors need to remember the value of reassuring people that they are not sick. Perhaps someone should start monitoring a new health metric: the proportion of the population not requiring medical care. And the
National Institutes of Health could propose a new goal for medical researchers:
reduce the need for medical services, not increase it."
I hope the industry will seriously consider the implications of this trend to over-diagnose. I should think insurance companies would lead the charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment