October 11, 2004

More does not = better

Two studies in the October 7 Health Affairs show once again how more expensive health care interventions do not always lead to better care. Across thousands of patients in hundreds of hospitals, the data show that despite spending "vastly more money" on x-rays, visits to specialists, inpatient care and followup, the high-use facilities were not doing a better job on quality care than the low-use facilities.
The research also showed wide patterns of practice variations and wide gaps in care for people on Medicare throughout the country. One of the researchers, Dartmouth's Jack Wennberg, has said in the past that in health care, geography is destiny. How you get treated may depend largely on where you live.

Posted by schwitz at October 11, 2004 09:27 AM
Comments

There's a lovely, though older, article - a favorite of mine - in American Scientist, Nov/Dec 2001.

In "Health and Human Society" Clyde Hertzman discusses determinants of societal health and comes to conclusions that are or should be shocking. Dollars spent on health care and availability of high tech procedures and devices aren't what assures good health outcomes for citizens.

The article is at: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14406;jsessionid=baa8Vh...

Posted by: Marilyn Meinke-Murphy at October 11, 2004 10:41 AM
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It! StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.