NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

What you need to know about a Washington State report on health care waste

Michael Joyce is a writer-producer with and tweets as @mlmjoyce

unnecessary care


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.

You might also like


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.