Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of
Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
Form mercola.com
This week's issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen
written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the
traditional medical paradigm.
If you want to keep updated on issues
like this click
here to sign up for my free newsletter.
This information is a followup of the Institute
of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year,
but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed
journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated
medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of
the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes
how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
- 12,000 -----unnecessary surgery 8
- 7,000 -----medication errors in
hospitals 9
- 20,000 ----other errors in
hospitals 10
- 80,000 ----infections in hospitals 10
- 106,000
---non-error, negative effects of drugs 2
These total to 250,000
deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This
term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity,
manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in
interpreting these numbers:
- First, most of the data are derived
from studies in hospitalized patients.
- Second, these estimates are for deaths
only and do not include negative effects that are associated with
disability or discomfort.
- Third, the estimates of death due to
error are lower than those in the IOM report.1
If the higher estimates are used, the
deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In
any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of
death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer.
Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between
these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular
disease).
Another analysis 11
concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience
negative effects in outpatient settings,with:
- 116 million extra physician visits
- 77 million extra prescriptions
- 17 million emergency department visits
- 8 million hospitalizations
- 3 million long-term admissions
- 199,000 additional deaths
- $77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system
is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the
assumption that better health results from more expensive care.
However, evidence from a few studies
indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate
care.
An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them
die each year as a result of medical errors.2
This might be tolerated if it resulted in
better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison,3,4
the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for
16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US
on several indicators was:
- 13th (last) for low-birth-weight
percentages
- 13th for neonatal mortality and infant
mortality overall 14
- 11th for postneonatal mortality
- 13th for years of potential life lost
(excluding external causes)
- 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for
females, 12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 15 years
for females, 12th for males
- 10th for life expectancy at 40 years
for females, 9th for males
- 7th for life expectancy at 65 years
for females, 7th for males
- 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years
for females, 3rd for males
- 10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was
recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used
different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25
industrialized countries.
There is a perception that the American
public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating
violence." However the data does not support this assertion.
-
The proportion of females who smoke
ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it
is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to
61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
-
The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic
beverage consumption.
- The US has relatively low consumption
of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20
industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol
concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized
countries.
These estimates of death due to error are
lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the
higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would
range from 230,000 to 284,000.
Even at the lower estimate of 225,000
deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in
the US, following heart disease and cancer.
Lack of technology is certainly not a
contributing factor to the US's low ranking.
- Among 29 countries, the United States
is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance
imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million
population. 17
- Japan, however, ranks highest on
health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
- It is possible that the high use of
technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched
by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of
diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
- Supporting this possibility are data
showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents)
in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas
they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by
the common practice of having family members rather than hospital
staff provide the amenities of hospital care.
Journal American
Medical Association Vol 284 July 26, 2000
COMMENT: Folks, this is what they call
a "Landmark Article". Only several ones like this are
published every year. One of the major reasons it is so huge as that it
is published in JAMA which is the largest and one of the most respected
medical journals in the entire world. I did find it most curious that
the best wire service in the world, Reuter's, did not pick up this
article. I have no idea why they let it slip by.
I would encourage you to bookmark this
article and review it several times so you can use the statistics to
counter the arguments of your friends and relatives who are so
enthralled with the traditional medical paradigm. These statistics prove
very clearly that the system is just not working. It is broken and is in
desperate need of repair.
I was previously fond of saying that
drugs are the fourth leading cause of death in this country. However,
this article makes it quite clear that the more powerful number is that
doctors are the third leading cause of death in this country killing
nearly a quarter million people a year. The only more common causes are
cancer and heart disease. This statistic is likely to be seriously
underestimated as much of the coding only describes the cause of organ
failure and does not address iatrogenic causes at all.
Japan seems to have benefited from
recognizing that technology is wonderful, but just because you diagnose
something with it, one should not be committed to undergoing treatment
in the traditional paradigm. Their health statistics reflect this aspect
of their philosophy as much of their treatment is not treatment at all,
but loving care rendered in the home.
Care, not treatment, is the answer.
Drugs, surgery and hospitals are rarely the answer to chronic health
problems. Facilitating the God-given healing capacity that all of us
have is the key. Improving the diet,
exercise, and lifestyle are basic. Effective interventions for the
underlying emotional and spiritual wounding behind most chronic illness
are also important clues to maximizing health and reducing disease.
Related Articles:
Medical
Mistakes Kill 100,000 per year
US
Health Care System Most Expensive in the World
Author/Article Information
Author Affiliation: Department of Health
Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public
Health, Baltimore, Md. Corresponding Author and Reprints: Barbara
Starfield, MD, MPH, Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns
Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Room 452,
Baltimore, MD 21205-1996 (e-mail: bstarfie@jhsph.edu).
REFERENCES
1. Schuster M, McGlynn E, Brook R. How
good is the quality of health care in the United States?
Milbank
Q. 1998;76:517-563.
2. Kohn L, ed, Corrigan J, ed, Donaldson M, ed. To Err Is Human:
Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;
1999.
3. Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing
Health Needs, Services, and Technology. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press; 1998.
4. World Health Report 2000. Available
at: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/report.htm.
Accessed June 28, 2000.
5. Kunst A. Cross-national Comparisons of
Socioeconomic Differences in Mortality. Rotterdam, the Netherlands:
Erasmus University; 1997.
6. Law M, Wald N. Why heart disease
mortality is low in France: the time lag explanation. BMJ.
1999;313:1471-1480.
7. Starfield B. Evaluating the State
Children's Health Insurance Program: critical considerations.
Annu
Rev Public Health. 2000;21:569-585.
8. Leape L.Unecessarsary surgery. Annu
Rev Public Health. 1992;13:363-383.
9. Phillips D, Christenfeld N, Glynn L. Increase in US medication-error
deaths between 1983 and 1993.
Lancet. 1998;351:643-644.
10. Lazarou J, Pomeranz B, Corey P.
Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA.
1998;279:1200-1205.
11. Weingart SN, Wilson RM, Gibberd RW,
Harrison B. Epidemiology and medical error.
BMJ. 2000;320:774-777.
12. Wilkinson R. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality.
London, England: Routledge; 1996.
13. Evans R, Roos N. What is right about
the Canadian health system? Milbank
Q. 1999;77:393-399.
14. Guyer B, Hoyert D, Martin J, Ventura S, MacDorman M, Strobino D.
Annual summary of vital statistics1998. Pediatrics.
1999;104:1229-1246.
15. Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, patterns of care, and
outcomes of care for generalists and specialists.
J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:499-511.
16. Donahoe MT. Comparing generalist and specialty care: discrepancies,
deficiencies, and excesses. Arch
Intern Med. 1998;158:1596-1607.
17. Anderson G, Poullier J-P. Health
Spending, Access, and Outcomes: Trends in Industrialized Countries. New
York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund; 1999.
18. Mold J, Stein H. The cascade effect
in the clinical care of patients. N
Engl J Med. 1986;314:512-514.
19. Shi L, Starfield B. Income inequality, primary care, and health
indicators. J
Fam Pract.
1999;48:275-284.
Return
To Table of Contents Issue #164
|