There is considerable agreement that the status quo of health care delivery in the United States is not sustainable and that it is not providing optimal care for all Americans. Many see the major goal of health care reform as decreasing the per-capita cost of care and increasing the quality of care. One of the obstacles to achieving health care reform is the enormous gap between what the health care experts believe and what the general public believe about staying healthy.
Very interesting post. I have a few concerns about having *experts* determine what is good for *my* health. My own conflict is quite obvious. We, as individuals would love to be screened for everything. But as recente literature suggests, this is not only sustainable, but may be *injuring* more patients than it helps. If we screen 100K patients, find two tumors and save their life, was it worth the needless tests and procedures that 50 patients had because of a *false-positive* result?? IS the cost to society worth the lives of the two patients saved? These are very difficult questions and issues that we will be forced to deal with in a very short while.
With respect to Kent’s article, I have significant concerns centering around who defines/vets the *experts*? Everyone is conflicted…some by their own values and some by employment, politics, etc. How can we be sure there are no conflicts of interest, etc? We can’t.
Another real and perhaps more valid concern is the fact that it can take a decade or longer for medical *fact* to become the *standard of care*. Perhaps even longer for widespread adoption. I would be concerned that the lag between conception, research, proof, publication, adoption and approval (government, expert or otherwise) could pose a significant risk to the health of many ????
Nice article Kent