June 7, 2010
AP: Overtreatment – more medical care isn't always better
The Associated Press, which sometimes may be viewed as only reacting to breaking news of the day, today published a timely and timeless feature explaining:
“Anywhere from one-fifth to nearly one-third of the tests and treatments we get are estimated to be unnecessary, and avoidable care is costly in more ways than the bill: It may lead to dangerous side effects.”
It’s timely because, on the heels of the New York Times’ criticism of Dartmouth Atlas methodology, it refers to Atlas data that shows that:
“.. in parts of the country, Medicare pays double or triple the price to treat people with the same illnesses. The differences are not fully explained by big cities’ higher cost of living or populations that are poorer, older or sicker. How much care someone gets is a main reason, yet Dartmouth’s data shows people in pricier areas don’t necessarily fare better.”
It’s also timely because, on the heels of a study published in Health Affairs that showed that many people surveyed thought more care meant higher-quality, better care, this story led with:
“More medical care won’t necessarily make you healthier — it may make you sicker. It’s an idea that technology-loving Americans find hard to believe.”
Nice team effort by AP with contributions from Lauran Neergaard, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Lindsey Tanner and Marilynn Marchione.
(Disclosure: the story quotes Dr. Michael Barry, president of the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, which supports my HealthNewsReview.org project.)
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like