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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry