Michael Joyce is a writer-producer with HealthNewsReview.org and tweets as @mlmjoyce
ProPublica reporter Marshall Allen opens his article about a Washington State report on unnecessary medical care like this:
It’s one of the intractable financial boondoggles of the U.S. health care system: Lots and lots of patients get lots and lots of tests and procedures they don’t need.
The authors from the Washington Health Alliance who published “First, Do No Harm: Calculating Health Care Waste in Washington State,” open their report like this:
Harm to patients can come in multiple forms. While harm is not intentional, it is particularly troublesome when it is a result of care that was unnecessary in the first place.
The same is true of health care journalism that contributes to this harm. While reporters don’t intend to cause harm, it’s particularly troublesome when it is the result of reporting that was not comprehensive and skeptical enough in the first place.
How often do we see reporting that hypes or promotes screening that is not evidence-based? A lot.
Journalists shouldn’t take their audiences down the path of unnecessary tests
What you’re not being told about ‘free’ public head and neck cancer screening events
TV station should stop promoting questionable screening tests at MN State Fair
The report does well in reminding us that beyond physical harms, there are usually inevitable emotional and financial harms that come into play. Stop and consider what a falsely positive test for cancer might feel like. Maybe you, or someone you know, is among the 45 percent of Americans who say they would struggle to cover an unexpected $500 medical bill.
Reporter Allen’s article — which was carried by both NPR and Kaiser Health News — speculates on what might be driving such alarming overuse and waste. One contributing factor is brought up by H. Gilbert Welch, MD of the Dartmouth Institute:
The medical system is still dominated by a payment system that pays providers for doing tests and procedures. Incentives matter … as long as people are paid more to do more, they will tend to do too much.
There are other factors to consider. How often do we as patients insist our doctors do something? Maybe prescribe something? And what role do doctors play? We know of their time constraints — and some providers do order things ‘just to be sure,’ or to avoid a lawsuit — but what about this emerging trend of offering financial incentives based on their patient satisfaction scores? Could this lead to ordering tests, or prescribing medicines, simply to curry favor and, therefore, increase income?
These are just a handful of many questions raised by this report. A report that speaks to a malignancy in our health care system that is clearly metastatic and untreated.
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