In any case, Gerberding cites the well-known evidence that eliminating access problems would resolve -- at best -- 25% of health disparities.Only 25% huh. In other words, if I were uninsured [and I have been] and I break my foot then most likely I will go to the emergency room and might even get it treated adequately right there [after they attempt to get my house and everything I own] or I may have to suffer for a week or so to get into someone's office who will treat my foot as long as I max out the remainder of my credit card (assuming I have one to max out) but in the end my broken foot will probably be addressed and I even may be able to walk on it. Ojalá.
So this encounter with the medical establishment will probably fall in to the 75% of the medical problems which get resolved, albeit at the cost of additional pain and suffering and the loss of my house, perhaps. But no big deal, that, to certain people at least. So there's a case that demonstrates the 'well-known evidence' that universal health care only solves 25% of the problem. No, you say? I don't think so either.
The health 'issues' that aren't addressed by access alone is the actual subject of the post: On the Very Idea of Health
Prevention, understood in the sense Starfield et al. intend it, is too important a concept to let become so conceptually diffuse.I suppose it's too late for them to come up with new terminology but they need it desperately. Prevention is to weak a term to encompass humanity's entire life conduct, behavior, customs, culture, habits, ways, mores, genetic predispositions etc.
ADDED: A particularly interesting post at the same blog (Medical Humanities Blog):
On Income Inequality and Population Health
No comments:
Post a Comment