Sometimes journalism affords us a stunning glimpse of differences in the way we view health care. Yesterday was once such day, as the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal published stories about strikingly different perspectives on the value of current treatments for Alzheimer's disease.
The AP story said that "families battling Alzheimer's disease and similar dementias increasingly are calling for a shot at riskier therapies that might bring bigger benefits than today's pretty safe but largely disappointing drugs." And it reported on a survey of elderly people at risk which showed that most accepted even the greatest potential for side effects for any shot at benefit.
The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, described a preliminary British government decision to ask doctors to stop prescribing Alzheimer's drugs because the cost-benefit ratio wasn't good. The WSJ quotes a British National Health Service spokesman saying, "We reached a point a while ago where there is far more medical intervention available than any health-care system can afford."
The paper explains: " (In the U.S.) even the most cost-conscious insurers say they'll pay if a drug works and there aren't other options. Britain openly and unapologetically adopts the second course. If a drug or type of surgery costs a lot and helps only a little, it says no."
Kudos to the WSJ for presenting the big picture. Unfortunately, AP, which reaches all newsrooms, only told half the story on this day.