|
|
This article in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the
published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical
paradigm.
This information is a follow-up of the Institute of
Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the
data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now
it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical
periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns
Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she describes how the US
health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
- 12,000 -----unnecessary surgery
8
- 7,000 -----medication errors in hospitals
9
- 20,000 ----other errors in hospitals
10
- 80,000 ----infections in hospitals
10
- 106,000 ---non-error, negative effects of
drugs 2
These total to 250,000
deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is
defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or
therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting
these numbers:
- First, most of the data are derived from studies
in hospitalized patients.
- Second, these estimates are for deaths only and
do not include negative effects that are associated with disability
or discomfort.
- Third, the estimates of death due to error are
lower than those in the IOM report.1
If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to
iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case,
225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in
the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if
these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these
numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular
disease).
Another analysis 11 concluded that between 4% and 18%
of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient
settings, with:
- 116 million extra physician visits
- 77 million extra prescriptions
- 17 million emergency department visits
- 8 million hospitalizations
- 3 million long-term admissions
- 199,000 additional deaths
- $77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered
to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that
better health results from more expensive care.
However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as
many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.
An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year
as a result of medical errors.2
This might be tolerated if it resulted in better
health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3,4
the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for
16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US
on several indicators was:
- 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
- 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality
overall
14
- 11th for post-neonatal mortality
- 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding
external causes)
- 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females,
12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females,
12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females,
9th for males
- 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females,
7th for males
- 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females,
3rd for males
- 10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed
by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and
ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.
There is a perception that the American public
"behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence."
However the data does not support this assertion.
- The proportion of females who smoke ranges from
14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24%
(fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in
Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
- The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage
consumption.
- The US has relatively low consumption of animal
fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized
countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations
among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.
These estimates of death due to error are lower than
those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher
estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from
230,000 to 284,000.
Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year,
this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US, following
heart disease and cancer.
Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing
factor to the US's low ranking.
- Among 29 countries, the United States is second
only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging
units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
- Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas
the US ranks among the lowest.
- It is possible that the high use of technology in
Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates
of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology
may be linked to more treatment.
- Supporting this possibility are data showing that
the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the
United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they
are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the
common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff
provide the amenities of hospital care.
Journal American Medical
Association Vol 284 July 26, 2000
COMMENT BY AUTHOR: Folks, this is what they call a "Landmark Article". Only several ones
like this are published every year. One of the major reasons it is so
huge as that it is published in JAMA which is the largest and one of the
most respected medical journals in the entire world. I did find it most
curious that the best wire service in the world, Reuter's, did not pick
up this article. I have no idea why they let it slip by.
I would encourage you to bookmark this article and
review it several times so you can use the statistics to counter the
arguments of your friends and relatives who are so enthralled with the
traditional medical paradigm. These statistics prove very clearly that
the system is just not working. It is broken and is in desperate need of
repair.
I was previously fond of saying that drugs are the
fourth leading cause of death in this country. However, this article
makes it quite clear that the more powerful number is that doctors are
the third leading cause of death in this country killing nearly a
quarter million people a year. The only more common causes are cancer
and heart disease. This statistic is likely to be seriously
underestimated as much of the coding only describes the cause of organ
failure and does not address iatrogenic causes at all.
Japan seems to have benefited from recognizing that
technology is wonderful, but just because you diagnose something with
it, one should not be committed to undergoing treatment in the
traditional paradigm. Their health statistics reflect this aspect of
their philosophy as much of their treatment is not treatment at all, but
loving care rendered in the home.
Care, not treatment, is the answer. Drugs, surgery and
hospitals are rarely the answer to chronic health problems. Facilitating
the God-given healing capacity that all of us have is the key. Improving
the diet, exercise, and lifestyle are basic. Effective interventions for
the underlying emotional and spiritual wounding behind most chronic
illness are also important clues to maximizing health and reducing
disease.
Related Articles:
Medical Mistakes Kill 100,000 per year
US Health Care System Most Expensive in the World
Drug Induced Disorders
Author/Article Information
Author Affiliation: Department of Health Policy and
Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health,
Baltimore, Md. Corresponding Author and Reprints: Barbara Starfield, MD,
MPH, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of
Hygiene and Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Room 452, Baltimore, MD
21205-1996 (e-mail: bstarfie@jhsph.edu).
REFERENCES
1. Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How good is the
quality of health care in the United States?
Milbank Q. 1998;76:517-563.
2. Kohn L, ed, Corrigan J, ed, Donaldson M, ed. To Err Is Human:
Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;
1999.
3. Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and
Technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998.
4. World Health Report 2000. Available at:
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/report.htm. Accessed June 28, 2000.
5. Kunst A. Cross-national Comparisons of Socioeconomic Differences
in Mortality. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Erasmus University; 1997.
6. Law M, Wald N. Why heart disease mortality is low in France: the
time lag explanation. BMJ. 1999;313:1471-1480.
7. Starfield B. Evaluating the State Children's Health Insurance
Program: critical considerations.
Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:569-585.
8. Leape L.Unecessarsary surgery.
Annu Rev Public Health. 1992;13:363-383.
9. Phillips D, Christenfeld N, Glynn L. Increase in US medication-error
deaths between 1983 and 1993.
Lancet. 1998;351:643-644.
10. Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P. Incidence of adverse drug
reactions in hospitalized patients.
JAMA. 1998;279:1200-1205.
11. Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW, Harrison B. Epidemiology and
medical error.
BMJ. 2000;320:774-777.
12. Wilkinson R. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality.
London, England: Routledge; 1996.
13. Evans R, Roos N. What is right about the Canadian health system?
Milbank Q. 1999;77:393-399.
14. Guyer B, Hoyert D, Martin J, Ventura S, MacDorman M, Strobino D.
Annual summary of vital statistics1998.
Pediatrics. 1999;104:1229-1246.
15. Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, patterns of care, and
outcomes of care for generalists and specialists.
J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:499-511.
16. Donahoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialty care: discrepancies,
deficiencies, and excesses.
Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1596-1607.
17. Anderson G, Poullier J-P. Health Spending, Access, and Outcomes:
Trends in Industrialized Countries. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund;
1999.
18. Mold J, Stein H. The cascade effect in the clinical care of
patients.
N Engl J Med. 1986;314:512-514.
19. Shi L, Starfield B. Income inequality, primary care, and health
indicators.
J Fam Pract. 1999;48:275-284. |