Treating the Healthy
Screening the apparently healthy potentially saves a few lives (although the National Cancer Institute couldn’t find any evidence for this in its recent large studies of prostate and ovarian cancer screening). But it definitely drags many others into the system needlessly — into needless appointments, needless tests, needless drugs and needless operations (not to mention all the accompanying needless insurance forms).
This process doesn’t promote health; it promotes disease. People suffer from more anxiety about their health, from drug side effects, from complications of surgery. A few die. And remember: these people felt fine when they entered the health care system…
By turning people into patients, screening makes a lot of money for pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors. The chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society once pointed out that his hospital could make around $5,000 from each free prostate cancer screening, thanks to the ensuing biopsies, treatments and follow-up care.
So who is to blame? Richard Nixon (read on)
Nixon’s the one.
This is precisely what Obama Care encourages: treating the healthy.
“People suffer from more anxiety about their health, from drug side effects, from complications of surgery.”
That’s really bothersome.
What a ridiculous statement! Preventative screening is NOT treating the healhty. If the test shows you are healthy, there’s no treatment. I can’t believe this author really believes that the idea of preventative screenings and services are a waste of time and that doctors and hopitals are just making stuff up so they can make money off of healthy people. The only way to find that small cancerous lump or early heart disease is through preventative screenings. Too often, once you have symptoms your condition has progressed so far that no treatment can save you.
@ Elaine
I think you are misunderstanding Welch’s point. He is not discounting preventive screening in its entirety, but instead saying that the current emphasis on screening has led many people to be overdiagnosed, and undergo unnecessary, potentially harmful treatment. Financial incentives favor the current screening regime, even if it is not clear based on available evidence that certain screening tests actually benefit patients (such as the PSA test for prostate cancer). In some cases, the tests may actually lead to more harm than benefit.
@ Eric,
Thanks for your response, but I have to disagree with you. This is how the article starts out: The best way to keep people healthy is to find out if they have (pick one) heart disease, autism, glaucoma, diabetes, vascular problems, osteoporosis or, of course, cancer — early. And the way to find these conditions early is through screening.
If the focus of the article is questioning specific screening tests such as for testicular and ovarian cancer, which may not be necessary according to recent data, then the opening paragraph should be phrased that way. It’s misleading and dangerous to give people even the slightest idea that preventative testing is a waste of time.
Then you get comments from Tom H. claiming that the health care reform changes from PPACA encourages treating health people, when it’s purpose it to encourage the availability of important preventative care services for EVERYONE. In the long run, preventative care costs less than trying to treat someone who has developed a chronic health condition that could have been prevented in first place.