Most people are surprised to learn that the rigorous application of formal rules to evaluate medical research and decide on the best treatments is a relatively new phenomenon. They might be just as surprised to learn that health policy is not yet subject to the same approach.
So-called "evidence-based medicine" entails a hierarchy of empirical proof that ranks medical studies according to their quality. Physiological research on animals, or on human responses in laboratory settings, rank low in the hierarchy. Observational studies that compare outcomes for patients who receive particular treatments against control subjects do not rank higher.
Convincing studies of drugs and surgical procedures usually come only from randomized trials, in which patients receive treatment or don't according to a process analogous to a coin flip. Well-conducted randomized trials incorporate extra safeguards against bias, including the use of placebo medication that allows investigators to blind patients and caregivers as to whether patients are -- or are not -- receiving active treatment.
Doctors have made many errors that they could have avoided had they used randomized trials. For example, for a decade leading doctors advocated hormone replacement therapy to lower cardiovascular risk in post-menopausal women. These recommendations, based on physiological and observational studies, proved profoundly misleading. Randomized trials ultimately showed that hormone replacement had no benefit and showed a clear increase in breast cancer and vascular blood clots.
Similarly, cardiologists once prescribed drugs to reduce sudden death in patients after heart attacks. The drugs suppressed arrhythmias -- disturbances of the heartbeat associated with sudden death.
The logic seemed clear: suppress the asymptomatic but nasty-looking arrhythmias and you will reduce sudden death. Unfortunately, when investigators conducted randomized trials, they found treated patients had a higher death rate. Clinicians stopped using the drugs, but not before causing a large number of unnecessary deaths.
But awareness that principles of evidence-based medicine should guide health policy has been slow to take root. Here, although randomized trials are not feasible, it remains possible to follow evidence-based medicine's primary rule: to base action on systematic summaries of the highest quality evidence available.
Consider the issue of whether countries should fund health care publicly through taxes or privately through health insurance and user fees.
Private health insurance has proved enormously wasteful, with large administrative expenditures on such things as developing insurance packages, marketing those packages and assessing claims. Public funding cuts these activities, resulting in far lower administrative costs.
Likewise, private insurance user fees discourage the poor and elderly from accessing needed health services, whereas public funding largely eliminates inequities in the provision of care while producing health outcomes that are as good as, if not better than, mixed public-private funding models. Public funding also benefits a country's economy, because large employers are spared the expense of providing health benefits to their workers.
Thus, the evidence suggests that public funding of all key aspects of medical care -- physician and hospital services, drugs and devices ?- offers benefits of equity, efficiency and industrial advantage.
The medical community has come to accept the need for systematic reviews to guide decisions regarding drugs and surgical therapies, but their use in health policy is only now taking hold. Systematic reviews have summarized the large for-profit companies versus not-for-profit providers hospital care.
The primary studies forming the basis of these reviews come from the US, where for-profit and not-for-profit providers work in the same environment, and where large administrative databases allow accurate detection of death rates.
But, while these observational studies are threatened by bias from patient selection, the available administrative databases document patient characteristics such as age, severity of illness and co-morbidity, including diabetes and high blood pressure. This information allows statistical approaches that level the playing field, helping to protect against biases associated with patient selection.
These systematic reviews have shown that for-profit hospital care leads to higher death rates than not-for-profit care, despite higher charges to third-party payers. Systematic reviews have demonstrated the same phenomenon in outpatient dialysis facilities -- lower death rates in not-for-profit facilities -- and have shown higher quality care in not-for-profit nursing homes.
The reason that not-for-profit providers can achieve higher quality care with better health outcomes at lower cost is evident. While for-profit providers have higher administrative costs and larger executive salaries, their main burden relative to not-for-profit provision is the need to generate returns for their shareholders.
These additional costs mean that roughly 20 percent of the total income that not-for-profit providers can devote to patient care is unavailable. The result is cutting corners, reduced quality of care and poorer outcomes for patients.
Principles of evidence-based medicine have transformed the way we look at clinical interventions and may prevent repetitions of public-health disasters such as the inappropriate promotion of hormone replacement therapy and anti-arrhythmic drugs.
Application of these principles to health policy can lead to wiser decisions about how to run our health systems. The available evidence provides strong support for public funding of health services delivered by not-for-profit providers.
Gordon Guyatt is professor of clinical epidemiology and biostatistics at McMaster University, Canada.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS