HEALTH CARE TO DIE FOR

[Guest guest]

HEALTH CARE TO DIE FOR

 

Provided by Casey Research

January 17, 2005

http://www.thenhf.com/articles_76.htm

 

 

 

 

“One thing is for certain about health in our country,” said George W.

Bush in a speech to the Illinois Medical Society in June 2003, “is [sic]

that we’ve got the best health care system in the world and we need to

keep it that way.”

 

Nothing could be further from the truth, says John Abramson, M.D.,

member of the clinical faculty at Harvard Medical School, former family

physician, and author of the 2004 book Overdosed America—the Broken

Promise of American Medicine.

 

In a comparative study of 13 industrialized nations, Dr. Barbara

Starfield, University Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins School of

Public Health, found that the overall health of Americans ranked second

to last. And according to the World Health Organization (WHO), Americans

have a healthy life expectancy of an average 2.5 years less than 22

other industrialized countries, ranking—again—second to last.

 

Looking at worldwide, in-depth rankings provided by the WHO, the U.S.

ranks 15 on “overall achievement” in the world, 37 on “overall

performance”, which measures the per-person health expenditures required

to reach the given level of achievement… and a paltry 72 on “performance

on the level of health”, which measures the efficiency with which a

health care system improves citizens’ overall health. A study by the

Rand Corporation, published in the New England Journal of Medicine of

December 2003, found that barely half of the standards for basic medical

care are being met.

 

However, it is understandable, says Abramson, that most Americans

believe they are getting the best health care. One reason is that it

feels that way: WHO surveys for its World Health Report 2000 showed that

on seven non-medical aspects of health care—such as dignity, autonomy,

and prompt attention—the U.S. ranked #1 in the world.

 

Another factor is the common belief that the United States does more

than its share of medical innovation, which ultimately benefits the rest

of the world. In fact, on a per-capita basis the U.S. doesn’t develop

more new drugs than western Europe or Japan, claims Abramson, and “of

the 569 new drugs approved… between 1995 and 2000, only 13 percent

actually contain new active ingredients that offer a significant

improvement over already available drugs and therapies.”

 

A third reason why we trust our health care so much is the fact that

many dangerous diseases have been virtually eradicated in the 20th

century—which, people tend to believe, is due to medical breakthroughs.

Since 1900, the average lifespan of Americans has lengthened by more

than 30 years. However, says the CDC, “25 years of this gain are

attributable to advances in public health,” meaning factors like

improved sanitation, better nutrition and housing, clean water, and

higher living standards. Preventive care like routine cholesterol

screenings, mammograms, etc. adds only 18-19 months to our lifespan, a

report by researchers from Harvard and King’s College, London stated,

and medical care for illness an additional 44-45 months. “The overall

effect of medical care, then,” says Abramson, “has been to increase

longevity by only about 5 years and 3 months during the twentieth

century.”

 

Case in point: The death rate from tuberculosis, the number-one killer

in 1900 in the United States, decreased by 87% over the next 50 years.

Curiously, the first effective medical therapies for TB were not even

introduced until 1950, well after the death rate had already plummeted.

Similar examples are measles, scarlet and typhoid fever, and diphtheria.

The only real medical triumphs, says the author, have been the battles

against polio and HIV/AIDS. He also cites America’s ‘war on cancer’,

which started in 1971—“despite an enormous investment in cancer

research, the age-adjusted death rate for cancer in the United States

actually increased by 74 percent from the beginning to the end of the

twentieth century. And by the end of the twentieth century, the

age-adjusted death rate for cancer was the same as for tuberculosis at

the beginning of the century.” He continues, “Notwithstanding the

barrage of news about major breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment

of cancer, the overall death rate from cancer was exactly the same in

the year 2000 as it had been in 1971, when ‘war’ was declared.”

 

Also, America is one of the few industrialized countries that allows

prescription drug advertising to consumers, with ads urging patients to

“talk to your doctor about” the latest breakthrough in XY therapy.

Emotionally charged but barely informative TV commercials show arthritic

seniors dancing in the sunlight or grandfathers giving testimony to

their gratitude that—thanks to life-prolonging drugs—they now have more

time left to enjoy their grandchildren. Favorable articles in the most

reputable peer-reviewed medical journals tout those benefits to doctors.

 

 

The problem is, states Abramson, that many of the underlying studies are

rigged, trivializing or completely omitting negative outcomes of

clinical trials. If eight of nine studies show that, say, an arthritis

drug severely increases the risk of heart failure in patients, only the

ninth study may be published… and it’s not even illegal. “How absurd to

have more than half the budget of the FDA division that approves new

drugs… paid directly by the drug companies’ user fees because the

federal government is unwilling to provide adequate funding. Completely

invisible to the public, officials at the National Institutes of Health

are allowed to participate in lucrative consulting contracts with the

drug companies. Experts with financial ties to the drug companies

dominate the FDA’s Advisory Committees and the panels that write the

clinical guidelines that define the standards of care for practicing

doctors. The medical industry even funds the majority of doctors’

continuing educati on.” The proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.

 

Not only does U.S. health care not meet international standards, it’s

also the most expensive in the world. Internationally available drugs,

for example, cost a whopping 70% more in the U.S. than in Europe or

Canada. A chart in Overdosed America shows the rankings of

industrialized nations in terms of cost of health care and health of the

population. Most countries are clustered around the center of the chart

with moderate cost and good health; the Czech Republic stands out with

low cost and poor health… while the United States is almost off the

chart with its combination of high cost and poor health. The percentage

of U.S. GDP devoted to health care climbed from 8.8% to 15.5% from 1980

to 2004… and we’re none the healthier for it. Researchers from Johns

Hopkins found that on most health indicators “the U.S. relative

performance declined since 1960; on none did it improve.”

 

The devil’s in the system, says Abramson, blaming “the transformation of

medical science from a public good whose purpose is to improve health,

into a commodity whose primary function is to maximize financial

returns.” His suggestion to solve this dilemma: Abolish the FDA and

establish an independent, publicly funded agency with no ties to the

medical industry whatsoever. While we support the first part of the

proposal, we’d be more interested in seeing a model where privately

owned companies compete to see which can provide the best and most

unbiased appraisal of new drugs. Of course, with a national mindset to

“let the government handle it”—the same mindset that has resulted in the

FDA and all its many flaws—we doubt a true free market solution is in

the cards any time soon… if ever.

 

So, what can you do to take care of yourself and your family? Become a

responsible consumer and think for yourself. Don’t take anything at face

value that drug companies or even your doctor tell you; get a second

opinion, do your own research, and above all, prevent disease… don’t

smoke, eat healthy, exercise regularly. Simple life style changes have

shown to be more effective than any of the so highly praised and

lavishly prescribed high-tech drugs. As an example, the so-called Lyon

Diet Heart Study (1988-1992) proved that heart attack patients on a

Mediterranean diet had a risk of recurrence three times lower than

patients on statin drugs.

 

And always remember: The large pharmaceutical companies’ only

responsibility is to their shareholders, not to their customers. That

they have Uncle Sam as their partner makes the playing field uneven.

 

 

 

This article originally appeared in the weekly e-letter, What We Now

Know (WWNK) - published by, and used here with permission from Casey

Research, LLC. Click here to sign up for a FREE subscription to WWNK, or

check out past editions in the WWNK archives at www.caseyresearch.com .

 

 

 

 

AIM Barleygreen

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/Diets.html