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
The government and local industries breathed a sigh of relief after Shin Kong Life Insurance Co last week said it would relinquish surface rights for two plots in Taipei’s Beitou District (北投) to Nvidia Corp. The US chip-design giant’s plan to expand its local presence will be crucial for Taiwan to safeguard its core role in the global artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem and to advance the nation’s AI development. The land in dispute is owned by the Taipei City Government, which in 2021 sold the rights to develop and use the two plots of land, codenamed T17 and T18, to the
Taiwan’s first case of African swine fever (ASF) was confirmed on Tuesday evening at a hog farm in Taichung’s Wuci District (梧棲), trigging nationwide emergency measures and stripping Taiwan of its status as the only Asian country free of classical swine fever, ASF and foot-and-mouth disease, a certification it received on May 29. The government on Wednesday set up a Central Emergency Operations Center in Taichung and instituted an immediate five-day ban on transporting and slaughtering hogs, and on feeding pigs kitchen waste. The ban was later extended to 15 days, to account for the incubation period of the virus
The ceasefire in the Middle East is a rare cause for celebration in that war-torn region. Hamas has released all of the living hostages it captured on Oct. 7, 2023, regular combat operations have ceased, and Israel has drawn closer to its Arab neighbors. Israel, with crucial support from the United States, has achieved all of this despite concerted efforts from the forces of darkness to prevent it. Hamas, of course, is a longtime client of Iran, which in turn is a client of China. Two years ago, when Hamas invaded Israel — killing 1,200, kidnapping 251, and brutalizing countless others
US President Donald Trump has announced his eagerness to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un while in South Korea for the APEC summit. That implies a possible revival of US-North Korea talks, frozen since 2019. While some would dismiss such a move as appeasement, renewed US engagement with North Korea could benefit Taiwan’s security interests. The long-standing stalemate between Washington and Pyongyang has allowed Beijing to entrench its dominance in the region, creating a myth that only China can “manage” Kim’s rogue nation. That dynamic has allowed Beijing to present itself as an indispensable power broker: extracting concessions from Washington, Seoul
RSS