HealthThe Global Is Local

Disease Prevention is Sexy

By February 22, 2013 One Comment

Preventative health care is sexy. This is true in politics — as a means of addressing our long-term cost issues — but also to providers and patient advocates in terms of quality. We have heard a lot about preventative care in the last few years, especially with the discussion and passage of the PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), a.k.a. “Obamacare.” But some argue that preventative care is just as expensive as the alternative.

So, does preventative care actually save money?

Regardless of whether or not it works, lowering costs by increasing preventative care is far from a new idea. A very brief search yielded this 1977 article touting the cost-effectiveness of preventative care. The theory is straightforward, and I will not belabor you with the details. In brief, however, it goes like this:

Some kinds of health care are expensive, and are often tied to chronic physical or psychological conditions. Treating those conditions early and often — improving habits and monitoring various indicators — rather than late and intensively should lower costs overall, since emergency or acute care in hospitals is very, VERY expensive. Oh, and health care expenditures are going up, in case you hadn’t heard.  (And although Medicare and Medicaid are part of the problem, they are far from the biggest part of the story…)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/U.S._healthcare_GDP.gif

US Healthcare Spending as a Percent of GDP

That’s the short and sweet version. Feel free to look out there on that world wide web for far more in-depth discussion and articles, or look into one of the many excellent books on the subject. Also, I recommend the blog post by my colleague, , who provides analysis of one of the Affordable Care Act’s major provisions, State Insurance Exchanges.

In some form or another, earlier, preventative interventions are the basis for many of our health reform efforts, both current and past. Usually there is some lip service to quality of care, too, but savings sell. They’re sexy.

So what is the problem? Take care of people before they are sick, save money doing it, pat yourself on the back and call it a day!

The problem is simply that preventative care is ALSO expensive. In addition, if preventative care is successful, it may simply delay future costs. This argument is not new either, as Marcia Angell writes in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1985: “Although preventive care may improve our health, it cannot be assumed to reduce medical costs, since a later death may be as expensive as an earlier one.” There’s also a fantastic study often cited by health economists by Manning et. al. proving that smokers and drinkers who die early based on their unhealthy behaviors actually are a net gain on the health economy.

Let’s circle back to the original question though: Does preventative care lower costs?

To help me answer this question, I had the pleasure of speaking with Doctor Jay Sanders yesterday. Among many other roles, he is a Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Medicine. He was quoted in Tuesday’s Kaiser Health News report on health kiosks in Walmart stores. These unmanned kiosks are self-service booths that allow customers to respond to questions about their health, diet, and family health history.

Dr. Sanders argued that the Preventative Care/Cost Reduction situation has been misrepresented. He pointed out that in the short-to-medium term (1-15 years), increased preventative care will almost certainly not decrease costs and instead probably drive them up. This does NOT mean that preventative care will cost more overall. Long term costs will likely come down, but the specifics are yet to be seen, and the time factor has been left out of the discussion.

To be successful, according to Dr. Sanders, health care needs to get smarter, more targeted, and more present for patients. He cites technological innovations, some of which are being developed and implemented here in our region, as potential game-changers. For instance, Under Armour and Zephyr are making items of clothing with embedded technology to monitor vital signs for athletes and gather other information for their coaches. Soon these items will be affordable consumer products that can be tied to our mobile devices, gathering data for us to share with our doctors about heart rhythms, activity levels, and asthma symptoms, among other metrics.

Finally, Dr. Sanders pointed out, the onus is on us as individual patients to generate better outcomes. Smart phones, apps, and wearable technology should make us more aware, at the least.

I agree with him, and I draw a tenuous parallel with democracy. We deserve the health, or government, that we get. If we want something different, we really ought to be more involved. If the Affordable Care Act is successful, we should not necessarily expect that success to be immediate. Instead, a long view is necessary, a chance to allow the experiment to take place.

As a parting thought, keep in mind that our spending as a country has not exactly yielded great results in the past. Quite frankly, a new approach could hardly make things worse:

Life expectancy vs health spending

 

IMAGE CREDITS,  University of California at Santa Cruz Health Atlas;
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Author Adam Conway

Adam Conway is a recent transplant to Baltimore, an advocate for intelligent, holistic policy in government and industry, and a potter. After receiving undergraduate degrees in art and psychology, Adam pursued a career in mental health care, serving those with mental illness in residential and community settings. In 2011, he completed a Master's in Public Health Policy at the University of Pittsburgh, and is now devoted to addressing systemic issues affecting the entire population- health, environment, food, and policy. He also has been making functional and decorative pottery for over ten years (www.FreeRangePottery.com) in community studio settings because he likes people and is inspired by their work. Any opinions expressed in Adam’s articles are his own and are not intended to represent those of any agency or organization for which he is employed.

More posts by Adam Conway

Join the discussion One Comment

  • chuck conway says:

    seems like those making the case that preventive care is expensive (maybe equal to acute care) are looking at stuff that’s pretty high up the food chain, so to speak: lab tests, diagnostic equipment, scattershot treatment of whole subsets of people with the hope of catching a few cases.

    truly preventive care, I think, lies further back upstream. Diet, exercise, meditation, yoga, psychosocial factors, to list just a few. a lot of this implicates action in realms where no one is making much money (aside from education, initial instruction, say). OR areas where some parties currently making very big money may stand to lose. See, just as an instance, today’s NYT, front page: “About 30% of heart attacks, strokes and deaths from heart disease can be prevented in people at high risk if they switch to a Mediterranean diet, according to new research.”

    gizmos in our Under Armour that interface with our smartphones are probably the wrong tack…

    I may be missing something but the related comments by the AMA article and Manning et al seem to very much miss the point and remind me more of the comment of Ebenezer Scrooge re the poor of his day, something along the lines of, “…well they better hurry up and die and reduce the surplus population.”

    thanks for the great article – these are important issues that our culture needs to delineate and come to grips with. we all need to give this stuff our attention.

Leave a Reply