Unhealthy Medicine

Establishing organized systems of care would reduce disease complications and related treatment costs, lower waste and administrative costs created by inefficiency and produce a healthier, more productive workforce.

Faced with this logic, why do our political leaders invest so little in such solutions and continue to pour billions of dollars into the development of new treatments? For some, it is because they share the public's misconception that medical advances are more important than repairing the delivery system. Others may not understand how bad the health care system has become. Budget pressures keep some lawmakers from doing more about quality. Spending two cents at AHRQ for every NIH dollar would double the AHRQ budget to $600 million per year, but that is a non-starter on Capitol Hill.

In the end, however, it all comes down to priorities. No organized political constituency is devoted to lobbying Congress to improve the quality of health, but perhaps it is time for the American people to express themselves. After all, it is their health at stake.

Perhaps we have reached a point when progress in providing good care -- when needed, with compassion and skill and without errors -- would impress the public as a more meaningful "medical advance" than the rollout of the latest device or pill.

This year's congressional elections offer an opportunity to place the importance of quality care on the national political agenda. Other issues are important, but this is a matter of life and death.

Author's email:

swoolf@vcu.edu

Steven Woolf is a professor of family medicine, epidemiology and community health at Virginia Commonwealth University.