.
A major focus of public health, about which I have written several times, is addressing the disparities in health arising from modifiable conditions (such as inequality of opportunity, income, and racial and ethnic differences). While it is common for those with privilege – wealth, health, opportunity – to believe that they have these privileges because they are “deserving”, i.e., because of their hard work, education, etc., such an outlook minimizes the critically important fact that there are lots of people who work just as hard and have very little. The “illegal immigrant”, working 3 minimum (or sub-minimum) wage jobs to try to just keep his or her family fed and housed, is not only not lazy, but working a lot harder than many of us who are able to enjoy weekends off, play golf, watch the kids’ sporting events.
So it is clearly not hard work alone. It is very much influenced by where you start, and what your opportunities have been. These are the social determinants of health (e.g., Social Determinants, Personal Responsibility, and Health System Outcomes, September 12, 2010) and the capability that people have of acting in healthful ways (Capability: understanding why people may not adopt healthful behaviors, September 24, 2010). It is common for people who have a lot to minimize, rather than to emphasize, the degree to which their position at the start of the race has affected their current position. Attacks on those who would seek to redress some of the most egregious inequities are still couched in terms of “economic class warfare” by those who have already won the war. Those with privilege are very concerned about change that would leave them with less of a leg up; they may give lip service to Horatio Alger heroes, but are more likely to wish to follow the model of George W. Bush. “If you’ve spent your entire life with the wind at your back,” a wise sage once noted (and I do not know to whom to attribute it), “a calm day seems unfair”. In terms of health, the connections are very clear. It is good for your health to be born rich. The Horatio Alger hero, pulled up by their own bootstraps, has worse health outcomes than the child born to privilege.
Health disparities, then, are real and important. But why should we – should anyone – be concerned about the disparities in physician income? After all, even the more “poorly” paid specialists, in primary care, make far more than the average American. Yes, they have worked hard to get into and through medical school and residency training, but, just as noted above, so have a lot of other people who will never make nearly as much. The problem is that, if the presence of a larger number/percent of primary care physicians is associated with improvements in the health of the population, and if the presence of wide disparities in income significantly influence students to choose higher paid specialties instead, then these disparities in health status are likely to continue and the overall health of the American people is likely to suffer. There is good data on both counts. Many of the posts in this blog have addressed the first, the positive influence of primary care on the health of the population (e.g., Lower Costs in Grand Junction: More Primary Care, Less High Tech, October 18, 2010; Primary Care, IMGs, and the Health of the People, August 14, 2010; and many others) and on health disparities[1]. I have also addressed the other point, the decrease in the number of students choosing primary care careers (e.g., Primary care specialty choice: student characteristics, July 12, 2010; Primary Care’s Image: A Problem?, November 17, 2009, and others).
A study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Leigh, et. al, “Physician wages across specialties”[2], is the most recent effort to quantify the differences. They utilized the large Community Tracking Study (CTS) of physicians from 2004-2005 to gather information on physician income. They grouped the physician responses into 4 broad categories (surgical, internal medicine and pediatric subspecialties [IMPSS], primary care, and other) and again into 41 specific specialties. They went beyond previous studies to calculate gross personal income on an hourly basis (thus controlling for hours worked per week) and did further adjustments to control for other variables, principally sex and age. They used a statistical manipulation to estimate incomes above the maximum set for the CTS (for some reason set at $400,000, much lower than many subspecialists make).
The outcomes were not surprising in comparison to previously reported data. In the 4 broad-group comparisons, primary care physicians averaged about $60/hr compared to IMPSS at $85, other medical at $88, and surgical at $92. In the single specialty comparisons, General Surgery was taken as a reference being actually near the middle ($86/hr), with the top incomes in neurosurgery ($132), radiation oncology ($126), and medical oncology ($114). At the bottom were family practice, general practice, general internal medicine, geriatric medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, and “other” pediatric subspecialties (whichever those may have been) with a range of $50-$58.
There are several reasons to think that differences are, in fact, greater than those reported. There was only a 53% response rate to the CTS, and so we do not know if non-respondents made more, less or the same as respondents. “Hospital-based” specialties, specifically anesthesiology and radiology, which are among the highest-paid, were excluded. Other high-end specialties, such as cardiovascular surgery or transplant surgery, do not appear as specific specialties, and may have their incomes hidden when grouped with “thoracic surgery” or “other surgical specialties”. There are many sources of income for many physicians, including a variety of expenses that can be paid by practices and which would presumably be greater for higher income practices. Many highly-paid specialties are paid by hospitals directly (such as anesthesiology and radiology) or through “physician service agreements”. The correction used by the authors of the study for incomes over $400,000 could have been inadequate; certainly anecdotal experience in many locations would suggest that considering $400,000 as a reasonable top end for the highest paid physicians would understate that by at least half.
Nonetheless, the income differences, even in 2004-05, were impressive. Given the debt load that medical students (particularly those, obviously, from the less wealthy families) graduate with, the significant attraction to higher pay is clear.
The Wall St Journal, in two recent articles (“Secrets of the system”) published October 26, 2010, looked at the Relative Value Update Committee (RUC), a group of 29 physicians convened by the AMA from different specialty organizations that make recommendations to Medicare on how to pay physicians for their, well, relative value. One, “Physician panel prescribes the fees paid by Medicare” by Anna Wilde Matthews and Tom McGinty, describes how this group meets to divide up a pie that Medicare seeks to keep constant. In the other, “Dividing the Medicare pie pits doctor against doctor”, Matthews discusses the contentiousness that happened when primary care physicians (greatly outnumbered) challenged their surgical colleagues to get a higher portion of the money (that is, to revalue activities done by primary care physicians relative to surgical specialists).
In the same issue of Archives of Internal Medicine that Leigh’s article appeared in, Federman and colleagues[3] surveyed physicians about whether they thought reimbursements were inequitable or not; 78.4% agreed that they are, with not that much difference between generalists and subspecialists. However, when the idea of shifting payments from subspecialists to generalists was raised, there was a marked difference; 66.5% of generalists supported this, while only 16.6% of surgeons did; overall 41.6% were supportive and 46.4% were opposed. That is, for most specialists, paying generalists more is ok, but paying themselves less is not.
The WSJ‘s Matthews quotes an email from Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) saying that the Medicare agency is moving to “improve Medicare's physician systems to correct historical biases against primary-care professionals." That needs to happen. The changes need to be dramatic. And they need to happen soon.
[1] Shi L, Macinko J, Starfield B, Xu J, Regan J, Politzer R and Wulu J, “Primary care, infant mortality, and low birthweight in the states of the USA”,J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58;374-380
[2] Leigh JP, Tancredi D, Jerant A, Kravitz RL, “Physican wages across specialties: informing the physician reimbursement debate, Arch Int Med 25Oct2010; 170(19):1728-34.
[3] Federman AD, Woodward M, Keyhani S, “Physicians’ opinions about reforming reimbursement: results of a national survey”, Arch Int Med, 25Oct2010;170(19):1735-42.
.
Showing posts with label determinants of health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label determinants of health. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Breast cancer screening: conflicting evidence? what are the important questions for health?
.
Several new, and sometimes contradictory, studies about breast cancer and screening mammography have recently appeared in the medical literature. In a recent study from Norway, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Kalager et. al[1] looked at the impact of mammography screening of women 50-69 years old in that country by comparing groups of women who were screened and those who were not screened between 1996 and 2005 and comparing them both with comparable groups for the 1986-1995 period. They discovered a significant decrease in the rate of breast cancer detected in women who were screened – but also in women who were not screened. The decrease was greater in the women who were screened, but this only accounted for 1/3 of the reduction in breast cancer mortality in that group; while the reductions in each group were statistically significant, the difference between them was not (quite). Overall the reduction in the death rate in screened women was 7.2 per 100,000 woman-years, and in the non-screened group 4.8 per 100,000 woman-years.
Meanwhile, Cancer published an article from Sweden looking at mammography screening for women who were 40-49 years of age. Because not all Swedish counties screened women that age, they were able to do a retrospective comparison between those counties who began screening at 40 compared to those counties who began at 50. Hellquist, et. al.,[2] found a significant risk reduction (a relative risk of 0.74 for women invited to screening and of 0.71 for those actually screened). Over 16 years of the study “…there were 803 breast cancer deaths in the study group (7.3 million person-years) and 1238 breast cancer deaths in the control group (8.8 million person-years)”, or converting to the same units as the other study, a reduction of 3 deaths per 100,000 woman years, from 14 to 11. The authors note that 1252 women this age would need to be screened to prevent one death.
The Swedish study provides data to support screening women at 40 (although the reduction was greatest in the 45-49 group, which is not surprising as the incidence of breast cancer increases with age). The Norwegian study shows that the rate of breast cancer has decreased anyway. The Swedish study is not a randomized controlled trial, but rather solely a historical comparison, and thus did not control for differences between the women who got screening and those who did not that might have affected breast cancer risk.
So which are we to believe? Both, to the extent that we can understand the methods used. The question is what are we to do? “We”, here, being both women who might choose to undergo mammography screening, and doctors who have to decide whether to recommend it, especially to those under the age of 50. For me, it will involve discussions with each woman, dependent on her individual risks and preferences. The population health benefit is small but significant; while for any woman the risk reduction might be of value regardless of the cost, that woman (and everyone else) has to also bear the cost of screening all those women – 1252 to save the life of one woman 40-49 in the Swedish study. Clearly, women who have a higher risk (family history) will benefit more, since they are more likely to have breast cancer than those without such a family history.
The cost is not only all those mammograms, but the cost of further tests (additional views or ultrasound) in women with questionable results (more common in younger women who on average have denser breasts), in biopsies – not without risk, though low – and pathology reports, discomfort etc. Not to mention what that money might otherwise be spent on. Feeding the homeless? Providing prenatal care? Fighting HIV/AIDS? Building more bombs? Bailing out big financiers? I would certainly agree that there are social programs that could more effectively use the money currently being spent to screen low-risk younger women for breast cancer with far more social benefit; I would also acknowledge the very low likelihood of any saving in mammography screening being used for such purposes rather than other high-tech medical care or further health system profit.
A more important question, perhaps, is why, at any age level, are certain parts of the population – poorer and minority women – less likely to be screened? To the extent that screening does detect cancer in earlier stages, when intervention can be done, and thus make a difference in mortality, why is it not being done as effectively with minority women? For example, African American women are less likely to get breast cancer, but more likely to die from it.
But people do want “answers”, definitives. Newspapers like to publish “breakthrough” research that seems to provide them. When the “answers” seem contradictory, it leads to frustration for many, and a decision to do what they had planned to do anyway, to do what seems to make “sense” (and what they can afford). After all, if sometimes we hear that Vitamin C or E or beta-carotene is a wonder drug to prevent cancer, or Alzheimer’s, and later studies show that it isn’t, and sometimes may even create greater risk, what are we to do?
One thing we could choose to do is to listen to those who are sure that they have the answers, even when these are based upon no data or carefully-selected data. If someone advises people based upon a single study, regardless of the scientific quality of that study and how often its results might have been refuted by later studies, they can be more confident and sure of themselves. This can inspire confidence on those they advise. (I am reminded of the story told by a colleague, fresh out of residency, who was practicing with farmworkers in the Imperial Valley of California. These folks, he said, are used to going to a doctor who listens to their problem, nods, tells them what they have, and gives them a shot to fix it. “I,” he noted, “listen, then tell them to take off all their clothes, examine them for a long time, and then finally tell them I’m not sure what it is, but it probably doesn’t need a shot – and that the shot might even be bad for them – and likely it will go away with time. Who are they going to trust?”). Showing confidence in your opinion is very persuasive. Thus the term “confidence men” (now shorted to “con”).
By the way, I don’t think this is such a good choice. That studies may seem contradictory is part of the nature of science, of how the studies were conducted, on whom, with what controls, using what methods. A future blog will discuss the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, whose work has raised questions about how much of the work published as research is true, made recently au courant by David H. Freedman’s article in the November Atlantic “Lies, damned lies, and medical science,” and some of the important lessons to be learned – and not learned – from his work. Nonetheless, this confusion does not justify complete nihilism – do whatever you want and it’s all the same – or much less undertaking treatments that have never really been studied. (See Drugs, Tobacco, Doctors and the Health of the Public, September 10, 2010.)
In the meantime, remember that there are probably not too many magic shortcuts to better health. A healthful diet and more exercise will make you fitter and stronger and able to do more things; reading and thinking and doing puzzles are interesting, stimulating and fun, whether they prevent Alzheimer’s disease or not.
[1] Mette Kalager, M.D., Marvin Zelen, Ph.D., Frøydis Langmark, M.D., and Hans-Olov Adami, M.D., Ph.D, Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway, N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1203-1210.
[2] Hellquist BN, et. al., Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years, Cancer published online Sept 29 ,2010
.
Several new, and sometimes contradictory, studies about breast cancer and screening mammography have recently appeared in the medical literature. In a recent study from Norway, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Kalager et. al[1] looked at the impact of mammography screening of women 50-69 years old in that country by comparing groups of women who were screened and those who were not screened between 1996 and 2005 and comparing them both with comparable groups for the 1986-1995 period. They discovered a significant decrease in the rate of breast cancer detected in women who were screened – but also in women who were not screened. The decrease was greater in the women who were screened, but this only accounted for 1/3 of the reduction in breast cancer mortality in that group; while the reductions in each group were statistically significant, the difference between them was not (quite). Overall the reduction in the death rate in screened women was 7.2 per 100,000 woman-years, and in the non-screened group 4.8 per 100,000 woman-years.
Meanwhile, Cancer published an article from Sweden looking at mammography screening for women who were 40-49 years of age. Because not all Swedish counties screened women that age, they were able to do a retrospective comparison between those counties who began screening at 40 compared to those counties who began at 50. Hellquist, et. al.,[2] found a significant risk reduction (a relative risk of 0.74 for women invited to screening and of 0.71 for those actually screened). Over 16 years of the study “…there were 803 breast cancer deaths in the study group (7.3 million person-years) and 1238 breast cancer deaths in the control group (8.8 million person-years)”, or converting to the same units as the other study, a reduction of 3 deaths per 100,000 woman years, from 14 to 11. The authors note that 1252 women this age would need to be screened to prevent one death.
The Swedish study provides data to support screening women at 40 (although the reduction was greatest in the 45-49 group, which is not surprising as the incidence of breast cancer increases with age). The Norwegian study shows that the rate of breast cancer has decreased anyway. The Swedish study is not a randomized controlled trial, but rather solely a historical comparison, and thus did not control for differences between the women who got screening and those who did not that might have affected breast cancer risk.
So which are we to believe? Both, to the extent that we can understand the methods used. The question is what are we to do? “We”, here, being both women who might choose to undergo mammography screening, and doctors who have to decide whether to recommend it, especially to those under the age of 50. For me, it will involve discussions with each woman, dependent on her individual risks and preferences. The population health benefit is small but significant; while for any woman the risk reduction might be of value regardless of the cost, that woman (and everyone else) has to also bear the cost of screening all those women – 1252 to save the life of one woman 40-49 in the Swedish study. Clearly, women who have a higher risk (family history) will benefit more, since they are more likely to have breast cancer than those without such a family history.
The cost is not only all those mammograms, but the cost of further tests (additional views or ultrasound) in women with questionable results (more common in younger women who on average have denser breasts), in biopsies – not without risk, though low – and pathology reports, discomfort etc. Not to mention what that money might otherwise be spent on. Feeding the homeless? Providing prenatal care? Fighting HIV/AIDS? Building more bombs? Bailing out big financiers? I would certainly agree that there are social programs that could more effectively use the money currently being spent to screen low-risk younger women for breast cancer with far more social benefit; I would also acknowledge the very low likelihood of any saving in mammography screening being used for such purposes rather than other high-tech medical care or further health system profit.
A more important question, perhaps, is why, at any age level, are certain parts of the population – poorer and minority women – less likely to be screened? To the extent that screening does detect cancer in earlier stages, when intervention can be done, and thus make a difference in mortality, why is it not being done as effectively with minority women? For example, African American women are less likely to get breast cancer, but more likely to die from it.
But people do want “answers”, definitives. Newspapers like to publish “breakthrough” research that seems to provide them. When the “answers” seem contradictory, it leads to frustration for many, and a decision to do what they had planned to do anyway, to do what seems to make “sense” (and what they can afford). After all, if sometimes we hear that Vitamin C or E or beta-carotene is a wonder drug to prevent cancer, or Alzheimer’s, and later studies show that it isn’t, and sometimes may even create greater risk, what are we to do?
One thing we could choose to do is to listen to those who are sure that they have the answers, even when these are based upon no data or carefully-selected data. If someone advises people based upon a single study, regardless of the scientific quality of that study and how often its results might have been refuted by later studies, they can be more confident and sure of themselves. This can inspire confidence on those they advise. (I am reminded of the story told by a colleague, fresh out of residency, who was practicing with farmworkers in the Imperial Valley of California. These folks, he said, are used to going to a doctor who listens to their problem, nods, tells them what they have, and gives them a shot to fix it. “I,” he noted, “listen, then tell them to take off all their clothes, examine them for a long time, and then finally tell them I’m not sure what it is, but it probably doesn’t need a shot – and that the shot might even be bad for them – and likely it will go away with time. Who are they going to trust?”). Showing confidence in your opinion is very persuasive. Thus the term “confidence men” (now shorted to “con”).
By the way, I don’t think this is such a good choice. That studies may seem contradictory is part of the nature of science, of how the studies were conducted, on whom, with what controls, using what methods. A future blog will discuss the work of Dr. John Ioannidis, whose work has raised questions about how much of the work published as research is true, made recently au courant by David H. Freedman’s article in the November Atlantic “Lies, damned lies, and medical science,” and some of the important lessons to be learned – and not learned – from his work. Nonetheless, this confusion does not justify complete nihilism – do whatever you want and it’s all the same – or much less undertaking treatments that have never really been studied. (See Drugs, Tobacco, Doctors and the Health of the Public, September 10, 2010.)
In the meantime, remember that there are probably not too many magic shortcuts to better health. A healthful diet and more exercise will make you fitter and stronger and able to do more things; reading and thinking and doing puzzles are interesting, stimulating and fun, whether they prevent Alzheimer’s disease or not.
[1] Mette Kalager, M.D., Marvin Zelen, Ph.D., Frøydis Langmark, M.D., and Hans-Olov Adami, M.D., Ph.D, Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway, N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1203-1210.
[2] Hellquist BN, et. al., Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years, Cancer published online Sept 29 ,2010
.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Health and income: "what's new?" or a good resource
.
This is a guest post by Kim Kimminau, PhD, Associate Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Kansas School of Medicine and Director of the Center for Community Health Research.
I come from a family where my parents, one a first generation American and the other a child immigrant, and the first in their families to complete high school, would say to me “so, somebody actually pays you to do that?”, and the “that” was my life’s work – the study of human health through time and space (aka, biological anthropology) and to conduct research. For them and so many others, reading the titles of research grants or peer reviewed articles was an exercise in a delightfully sardonic mix of tongue-twisted, mispronounced terms, outright mockery and guessing what and why anyone would want to spend “good money” (as my father would say) to study such things.
Apparently, the time has come. I have become my parents.
In the online Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s News Digest on public health I learned from a UPI story that a Gallup poll was recently conducted among 200,000 U.S. adults over the span of nine months (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/10/18/US-health-well-being-tied-to-income/UPI-74081287460458/ ). This alone is pretty mind-boggling – a huge poll by almost any standard. I read on. What was learned from the survey was that “the more money Americans make, the better physical emotional and fiscal well being they report.” Really? Who could possibly be surprised at this finding? Using my parent’s lexicon, more importantly, who would waste good money on measuring this?
The article went on to say that poor adults are three times more likely to smoke, eat less healthy options and exercise infrequently. Those with lower incomes are more likely to report having been told they have a chronic disease and, more than their more affluent counterparts, poor Americans report being obese and having twice as many colds and flu. So I braced myself, waiting some intrinsic “blame the victim message” – if only “those people” (and yes, I detest such speech) would stop eating fast food, get a job, stop wasting their money on cigarettes and cell phones, and take care of themselves, these statistics would be very different. But wait, this information was put out by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation….surely a more valuable lesson about determinants of health was imbedded in the UPI report? But no, the article ended.
So I did some digging. I took some time to learn that Gallup entered a 25-year partnership in 2008 with Healthways (a publicly traded NASDAQ company, headquartered in Tennessee and led by CEO Ben Leedle (who, interestingly, has ties to Wichita, KS)). They conduct a daily nationwide survey that produces the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. Not only is this the largest “behavioral economic database ever created” the Well-Being Index can be used to drill down to associated state, congressional district and city level reports. Eureka! While I was busy dissing the effort, I actually uncovered a fascinating resource that monitors the pulse of the nation on a variety of indicators that I should have been paying attention to over the past two years.
The methodology being used is commendable. Each daily sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimums to ensure representative gender within each region. Using Current Population Survey figures for the 18 year old and older non-institutionalized adult population and including Spanish language interviews, they have a 98% representative adult sample. They measure 6 domains of well-being: emotional health, physical health, healthy behavior, work environment, basic access, and a sixth called “life evaluation” (it includes 2 questions that use the Cantril Ladder scale (Cantril, 1965)). As with any rating system, our first inclination is to look at where we fall on the scale, so in this case, I clicked on “Kansas” to review the most recent summary report (the report includes data collected during 2009. You can also click on “snapshot findings” to see data collected during the most recent 6 months. What that profile tells you is that you should be happy if you don’t live in West Virginia.)
The Kansas report can be found at: http://www.well-beingindex.com/files/2010WBIrankings/KS_StateReport.pdf . (And Nebraska at http://www.well-beingindex.com/files/2010WBIrankings/NE_StateReport.pdf, and you get the drill!) You may be surprised that our state is the last state in the top quintile for overall well-being (up from 22nd in 2008). What’s more, among our three largest cities, Topeka (not Wichita or Kansas City) ranks worst on overall rank. Finally, if I were running for political office in the 1st Congressional District, I’d be worried about the fact that constituents report the worst life evaluation scores compared to the other three districts by a long shot.
But back to the bigger picture. I’d urge you to go to the well-being index home page http://well-beingindex.com/monthlyWBIreport.asp and click on the “daily pulse” tab of the dashboard. I’m a numbers person, but just looking at the daily distance between the orange line of those “thriving” and the green line of those “suffering” should give us all a reason to reflect on why poor people smoke, eat empty calories and at times feel hopeless and helpless. The distance between those doing well and not well is enormous, and the need to close the disparities gap couldn’t be clearer. I plan to return regularly to this page to review how health reform implementation begins to bend these curves, especially on the “basic access” and the “physical health” tabs for the index.
While I’m happy that I inherited the genetic predisposition of skepticism from my parents, I’m equally happy that my training has made me a data dumpster diver and that this superficial article yielded a great return of a new resource for me.
Live and learn. That was another of my parent’s favorite sayings.
.
This is a guest post by Kim Kimminau, PhD, Associate Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Kansas School of Medicine and Director of the Center for Community Health Research.
I come from a family where my parents, one a first generation American and the other a child immigrant, and the first in their families to complete high school, would say to me “so, somebody actually pays you to do that?”, and the “that” was my life’s work – the study of human health through time and space (aka, biological anthropology) and to conduct research. For them and so many others, reading the titles of research grants or peer reviewed articles was an exercise in a delightfully sardonic mix of tongue-twisted, mispronounced terms, outright mockery and guessing what and why anyone would want to spend “good money” (as my father would say) to study such things.
Apparently, the time has come. I have become my parents.
In the online Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s News Digest on public health I learned from a UPI story that a Gallup poll was recently conducted among 200,000 U.S. adults over the span of nine months (http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/10/18/US-health-well-being-tied-to-income/UPI-74081287460458/ ). This alone is pretty mind-boggling – a huge poll by almost any standard. I read on. What was learned from the survey was that “the more money Americans make, the better physical emotional and fiscal well being they report.” Really? Who could possibly be surprised at this finding? Using my parent’s lexicon, more importantly, who would waste good money on measuring this?
The article went on to say that poor adults are three times more likely to smoke, eat less healthy options and exercise infrequently. Those with lower incomes are more likely to report having been told they have a chronic disease and, more than their more affluent counterparts, poor Americans report being obese and having twice as many colds and flu. So I braced myself, waiting some intrinsic “blame the victim message” – if only “those people” (and yes, I detest such speech) would stop eating fast food, get a job, stop wasting their money on cigarettes and cell phones, and take care of themselves, these statistics would be very different. But wait, this information was put out by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation….surely a more valuable lesson about determinants of health was imbedded in the UPI report? But no, the article ended.
So I did some digging. I took some time to learn that Gallup entered a 25-year partnership in 2008 with Healthways (a publicly traded NASDAQ company, headquartered in Tennessee and led by CEO Ben Leedle (who, interestingly, has ties to Wichita, KS)). They conduct a daily nationwide survey that produces the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. Not only is this the largest “behavioral economic database ever created” the Well-Being Index can be used to drill down to associated state, congressional district and city level reports. Eureka! While I was busy dissing the effort, I actually uncovered a fascinating resource that monitors the pulse of the nation on a variety of indicators that I should have been paying attention to over the past two years.
The methodology being used is commendable. Each daily sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimums to ensure representative gender within each region. Using Current Population Survey figures for the 18 year old and older non-institutionalized adult population and including Spanish language interviews, they have a 98% representative adult sample. They measure 6 domains of well-being: emotional health, physical health, healthy behavior, work environment, basic access, and a sixth called “life evaluation” (it includes 2 questions that use the Cantril Ladder scale (Cantril, 1965)). As with any rating system, our first inclination is to look at where we fall on the scale, so in this case, I clicked on “Kansas” to review the most recent summary report (the report includes data collected during 2009. You can also click on “snapshot findings” to see data collected during the most recent 6 months. What that profile tells you is that you should be happy if you don’t live in West Virginia.)
The Kansas report can be found at: http://www.well-beingindex.com/files/2010WBIrankings/KS_StateReport.pdf . (And Nebraska at http://www.well-beingindex.com/files/2010WBIrankings/NE_StateReport.pdf, and you get the drill!) You may be surprised that our state is the last state in the top quintile for overall well-being (up from 22nd in 2008). What’s more, among our three largest cities, Topeka (not Wichita or Kansas City) ranks worst on overall rank. Finally, if I were running for political office in the 1st Congressional District, I’d be worried about the fact that constituents report the worst life evaluation scores compared to the other three districts by a long shot.
But back to the bigger picture. I’d urge you to go to the well-being index home page http://well-beingindex.com/monthlyWBIreport.asp and click on the “daily pulse” tab of the dashboard. I’m a numbers person, but just looking at the daily distance between the orange line of those “thriving” and the green line of those “suffering” should give us all a reason to reflect on why poor people smoke, eat empty calories and at times feel hopeless and helpless. The distance between those doing well and not well is enormous, and the need to close the disparities gap couldn’t be clearer. I plan to return regularly to this page to review how health reform implementation begins to bend these curves, especially on the “basic access” and the “physical health” tabs for the index.
While I’m happy that I inherited the genetic predisposition of skepticism from my parents, I’m equally happy that my training has made me a data dumpster diver and that this superficial article yielded a great return of a new resource for me.
Live and learn. That was another of my parent’s favorite sayings.
.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Social Determinants, Personal Responsibility, and Health System Outcomes
.
Whole Foods, Inc., CEO John Mackey has been both an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's health reform plan and an advocate for “personal accountability” suggesting that people’s health behaviors – including such things as smoking, poor diet, obesity, and lack of exercise -- account for much of their health risk, and thus people should be held responsible for the poor choices that they make, receiving fewer health benefits if they have not taken the steps to maintain their own health. He has recently made this argument in an op-ed piece in the Wall St. Journal, “The Whole Foods alternative to Obamacare” (August 11, 2010). Subtitled “Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit”, Mackey runs through a list of proposals that feature inequity, maintaining and increasing the health and wealth of those who already have the most of it; that would create enormous increases in insurance company profit, would not meet the health needs of those who have needs, and would end up costing a fortune. The “controls” are all on services that would benefit people, the “freedom” is all for corporations to continue to have unfettered access to excessive profit.
“All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments,” he writes. Of course, his definition of “socialized” includes the health systems of every single developed country in the world outside the US, whether they have a National Health Service (e.g., UK), single-payer insurance (e.g., Canada) or a mixed system that includes private insurers that are regulated (e.g., Switzerland, Germany). What is unsaid by Mackey is that the system he proposes (much like the current one in the US) does not eliminate lines for everyone but rations by wealth and insurance status. CEOs like him do not have to wait in lines, but the further d
own the socioeconomic ladder you are, the longer the line becomes, until, at the end, unlike in those other countries, there are tens of millions of people who can’t get on the line at all. Unsurprisingly, these proposals are likely to resonate with and please the readers of the Wall St. Journal’s editorial pages. The US health system is not only incredibly expensive (not because it covers everyone, which it doesn’t, but because of the huge profits taken out of the system by Mackey’s fellow CEOs) and unfair, but it performs poorly on virtually all dimensions (see the Commonwealth Fund’s 2010 report, “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall”, with results summarized in the attached figure).
More insidiously, however, some of these arguments can appeal to many others, who see sense in expecting people to take “responsibility” for their health and act in healthful ways: “Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.” Eat nutritious food, exercise, don’t smoke or take illegal drugs or drink to excess, etc. This is good advice, and all of us should try to take it. I’m sure that it is advice that many of the employees of Whole Foods – the ones who are young and healthy – appreciate, because it validates what they do, and see – the “outcome” is that they are young and healthy. It is possible that there are other Whole Foods employees, not young and healthy but older and/or with chronic disease – who many not find his advice, or the company’s health plan, to be of such great value. His essay may be a call to action for those who, given some combination of youth, genetic luck, good health, and socioeconomic opportunity, are still not doing all they can.
But health behaviors – and
the health care system – are not the only determinants of health. Indeed, the Determinants of Health model from Healthy People 2010 (see figure) make clear that there are m any factors that impact health, most of which are ignored by Mackey and his ilk. They are also not all going to be addressed by health system reform, whether that in the current “Obama” plan or even in a more extensive change, advocated by people like me and the Physicians for a National Health Program to be more like the other, much higher performing systems in other countries. That system change is necessary, but not, in itself, sufficient. The environment, both physical and socio-economic, have tremendous impact. In addition, issues not specifically on this model, such as the impact of race (racism, not perhaps overt but in terms of the impact of “perception of race” on those of color). These are the Social Determinants of Health, and have been written about extensively, in a literature that is either unknown to or rejected by Mackey and his friends. Perhaps the clearest exposition of the Social Determinants is by Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who has written extensively on this topic. However, she has also developed a cartoon depicting how the social determinants of health intersect with the health care system as well as how the different levels of the health care system (primary, secondary, tertiary prevention, and treatment) interact with each other. Her slide show, “Social Determinants of Health and Equity, the Impacts of Racism on Health” is available on line and contains these cartoons. They demonstrate, through the use of a cliff analogy, the role of these different factors. Although very useful for teaching children, their clarity is also of great value for teaching health professionals. And they might even be understood by CEOs.
With Dr. Jones’ permission, Neal Palafox, MD, of the University of Hawaii, produced slides based on her model, one of which is reproduced here. It represents health risk as a cliff. If someone falls off, we can provide medical care (the ambulance); however this is variably available for people (access to care). If we can identify diseases and treat them before they require expensive care, this is secondary prevention (the net
also represents “safety net” health services). Better yet, we can provide primary prevention – keep people from falling off the cliff (the fence). Some of this is achieved through the individual behavior changes like those advocated by Mackey. The social determinants, however, which he ignores, are represented by the distance that people are from the edge of the cliff; some folks are at greater risk. As Dr. Jones also develops in her slides, many of those same people are those who have less protection by the fence, or the net, or for whom, when they do get sick (fall off the cliff) the ambulance is not there, or even “going in the wrong direction”.
Most of the discussion of these issues are among those of us who are relatively privileged. We may not be wealthy CEOs like John Mackey, but we are educated, literate, and consumers of ideas. Most of us are at least middle-class; even those who may say “no, I don’t have money” are usually in that status temporarily (e.g., from being students), but have the values and self-efficacy that comes from our class, socioeconomic, and educational background. This group certainly includes all the politicians, pundits, academics and successful businesspeople – and medical students. It may be hard to believe, but the vast majority of people are not in that group. Check out income demographics: according to the US census, in 2000 only 12.29% of households – not individuals – had incomes over $100,000 a year, and only 2.37% over $200,000; 2008 estimates indicate household income >$100,000 is the top quintile, and the top 5% is >$180,000.
We absolutely need health reform, real reform, that will begin to move us in the direction of the high-performing health systems in other countries. We also need to encourage healthful behaviors. However, rather than penalizing others whose circumstances – genetic, socioeconomic, social, racial, physical – make that more difficult, we need to develop programs, that require, as Dr. Jones notes, “…collaboration with multiple sectors outside of health, including education, housing, labor, justice, transportation, agriculture and environment.”
And we need to get started.
.
Whole Foods, Inc., CEO John Mackey has been both an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's health reform plan and an advocate for “personal accountability” suggesting that people’s health behaviors – including such things as smoking, poor diet, obesity, and lack of exercise -- account for much of their health risk, and thus people should be held responsible for the poor choices that they make, receiving fewer health benefits if they have not taken the steps to maintain their own health. He has recently made this argument in an op-ed piece in the Wall St. Journal, “The Whole Foods alternative to Obamacare” (August 11, 2010). Subtitled “Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit”, Mackey runs through a list of proposals that feature inequity, maintaining and increasing the health and wealth of those who already have the most of it; that would create enormous increases in insurance company profit, would not meet the health needs of those who have needs, and would end up costing a fortune. The “controls” are all on services that would benefit people, the “freedom” is all for corporations to continue to have unfettered access to excessive profit.
“All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments,” he writes. Of course, his definition of “socialized” includes the health systems of every single developed country in the world outside the US, whether they have a National Health Service (e.g., UK), single-payer insurance (e.g., Canada) or a mixed system that includes private insurers that are regulated (e.g., Switzerland, Germany). What is unsaid by Mackey is that the system he proposes (much like the current one in the US) does not eliminate lines for everyone but rations by wealth and insurance status. CEOs like him do not have to wait in lines, but the further d
own the socioeconomic ladder you are, the longer the line becomes, until, at the end, unlike in those other countries, there are tens of millions of people who can’t get on the line at all. Unsurprisingly, these proposals are likely to resonate with and please the readers of the Wall St. Journal’s editorial pages. The US health system is not only incredibly expensive (not because it covers everyone, which it doesn’t, but because of the huge profits taken out of the system by Mackey’s fellow CEOs) and unfair, but it performs poorly on virtually all dimensions (see the Commonwealth Fund’s 2010 report, “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall”, with results summarized in the attached figure).More insidiously, however, some of these arguments can appeal to many others, who see sense in expecting people to take “responsibility” for their health and act in healthful ways: “Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.” Eat nutritious food, exercise, don’t smoke or take illegal drugs or drink to excess, etc. This is good advice, and all of us should try to take it. I’m sure that it is advice that many of the employees of Whole Foods – the ones who are young and healthy – appreciate, because it validates what they do, and see – the “outcome” is that they are young and healthy. It is possible that there are other Whole Foods employees, not young and healthy but older and/or with chronic disease – who many not find his advice, or the company’s health plan, to be of such great value. His essay may be a call to action for those who, given some combination of youth, genetic luck, good health, and socioeconomic opportunity, are still not doing all they can.
But health behaviors – and
the health care system – are not the only determinants of health. Indeed, the Determinants of Health model from Healthy People 2010 (see figure) make clear that there are m any factors that impact health, most of which are ignored by Mackey and his ilk. They are also not all going to be addressed by health system reform, whether that in the current “Obama” plan or even in a more extensive change, advocated by people like me and the Physicians for a National Health Program to be more like the other, much higher performing systems in other countries. That system change is necessary, but not, in itself, sufficient. The environment, both physical and socio-economic, have tremendous impact. In addition, issues not specifically on this model, such as the impact of race (racism, not perhaps overt but in terms of the impact of “perception of race” on those of color). These are the Social Determinants of Health, and have been written about extensively, in a literature that is either unknown to or rejected by Mackey and his friends. Perhaps the clearest exposition of the Social Determinants is by Camara Phyllis Jones, MD, MPH, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who has written extensively on this topic. However, she has also developed a cartoon depicting how the social determinants of health intersect with the health care system as well as how the different levels of the health care system (primary, secondary, tertiary prevention, and treatment) interact with each other. Her slide show, “Social Determinants of Health and Equity, the Impacts of Racism on Health” is available on line and contains these cartoons. They demonstrate, through the use of a cliff analogy, the role of these different factors. Although very useful for teaching children, their clarity is also of great value for teaching health professionals. And they might even be understood by CEOs.With Dr. Jones’ permission, Neal Palafox, MD, of the University of Hawaii, produced slides based on her model, one of which is reproduced here. It represents health risk as a cliff. If someone falls off, we can provide medical care (the ambulance); however this is variably available for people (access to care). If we can identify diseases and treat them before they require expensive care, this is secondary prevention (the net
also represents “safety net” health services). Better yet, we can provide primary prevention – keep people from falling off the cliff (the fence). Some of this is achieved through the individual behavior changes like those advocated by Mackey. The social determinants, however, which he ignores, are represented by the distance that people are from the edge of the cliff; some folks are at greater risk. As Dr. Jones also develops in her slides, many of those same people are those who have less protection by the fence, or the net, or for whom, when they do get sick (fall off the cliff) the ambulance is not there, or even “going in the wrong direction”.Most of the discussion of these issues are among those of us who are relatively privileged. We may not be wealthy CEOs like John Mackey, but we are educated, literate, and consumers of ideas. Most of us are at least middle-class; even those who may say “no, I don’t have money” are usually in that status temporarily (e.g., from being students), but have the values and self-efficacy that comes from our class, socioeconomic, and educational background. This group certainly includes all the politicians, pundits, academics and successful businesspeople – and medical students. It may be hard to believe, but the vast majority of people are not in that group. Check out income demographics: according to the US census, in 2000 only 12.29% of households – not individuals – had incomes over $100,000 a year, and only 2.37% over $200,000; 2008 estimates indicate household income >$100,000 is the top quintile, and the top 5% is >$180,000.
We absolutely need health reform, real reform, that will begin to move us in the direction of the high-performing health systems in other countries. We also need to encourage healthful behaviors. However, rather than penalizing others whose circumstances – genetic, socioeconomic, social, racial, physical – make that more difficult, we need to develop programs, that require, as Dr. Jones notes, “…collaboration with multiple sectors outside of health, including education, housing, labor, justice, transportation, agriculture and environment.”
And we need to get started.
.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Health Outcomes: The interaction of class and health behaviors
.
I have recently discussed (Poverty, Primary Care and the Cost of Medical Care, February 10, 2010) the “Whitehall Studies” conducted by Sir Michael Marmot and colleagues that “demonstrate that there is a more or less linear correlation between health (including longevity) and increasing social class". That piece discussed the report of a panel headed by Marmot, “Fair Society, Healthy Lives”, that shows that these problems have not been resolved. A new paper from the follow-up “Whitehall II” study, conducted by Silvia Stringhini and colleagues from both Britain and France, “Association of socioeconomic position with health behavior and mortality”, (JAMA Mar24/31,2010;303(12):1159-66), examined the role of alcohol, tobacco, diet, and physical activity in accounting for these differences over an extraordinarily long 24-year follow-up period.
Stringhini, et. al., found that in fact adverse health behaviors accounted for about 42% of the increase in mortality in lower socioeconomic groups (which was about 1.6 times as high in lowest than in the highest socioeconomic group). Smoking was the most powerful negative factor, with the others contributing a smaller amount. “There was a marked social gradient in health behaviors at baseline. Participants in the lower socioeconomic positions were more likely to smoke, abstain from alcohol consumption, follow an unhealthy diet, and be physically inactive and less likely to consume heavy amounts of alcohol.” Most of this is consistent with the observations of physicians and epidemiologists in the US, with the surprising exception of alcohol use being lower in lower income groups. This may be a difference between the US and Britain; in Britain, in the 20th century, cirrhosis was a disease largely of the upper class who could afford the highly taxed, and high alcohol content, distilled spirits. Another possibility (and this is my speculation, not data) is that the lower socioeconomic group studied by Whitehall II in England may have a large component of Muslims, who do not drink. In any case, the impact of smoking, poor diet, and physical inactivity accounted for a significant part of the class difference in mortality, although it did not account for even the majority of that difference.
Thus, this study supports two well-established assumptions: 1) that adverse health behaviors are a significant contributor to ill health and higher age-adjusted mortality rate, and 2) that people in lower socioeconomic groups have worse health and higher mortality rates, much, but not all, of which can be associated with their higher rates of adverse health behaviors. Previous work on the results of Whitehall have suggested, and demonstrated evidentiary support for, the hypothesis that stress in daily life (of worrying about how you will pay the rent and feed your family, whether you are going to lose your job, or, particularly in the case of ethnic and racial minorities, not only whether you will be arrested or harassed by the authorities but the indignities of ongoing discrimination), mediated through only partially understood neurochemical pathways, account for much of this effect. However, to the extent that people can divest themselves of risky health behaviors, they can decrease, if not eliminate, their higher risk for adverse health outcomes.
In the same issue of JAMA, James R. Dunn of McMaster University in Canada, has a very insightful editorial commenting on the Stringhini article, “Health behavior vs the stress of low socioeconomic status and health outcomes” (JAMA, Mar24/31, 2010;303(12):1199-1200). He repeats the caution of the Whitehall authors that the population studied in the Whitehall cohort may not be representative of the British population overall (and, by extension, of the US or Canadian population). Indeed, the cohort was originally selected by Marmot and colleagues to reduce the confounding that might come from general studies of people in different classes because of occupational risks. Dunn points to the association of the stress of low socioeconomic status and the prevalence of adverse health behaviors: “…it is possible to consider both factors [stress and behavior] as part of the same pathway between relatively low socioeconomic status and health. Unhealthy behaviors are more common among individuals with low socioeconomic status because of the stress of low socioeconomic status. Accordingly, there is a direct causal pathway between low socioeconomic status and poor health as well as an indirect causal pathway through health behavior, which reinforce one another over the lifecourse.” That is, the stress of being poor makes you more likely to do unhealthful things that we know about (smoking, poor diet, low physical activity) that make you less healthy, and also makes you less healthy through a pathway that we don’t completely understand.
Dunn notes that while changing health behaviors in lower socioeconomic populations would be a good thing, “The problem is that traditional individually oriented health behavior education interventions are not very effective, and individuals with low socioeconomic status have been notoriously difficult to reach with such programs”. He discusses a variety of early childhood developmental characteristics, especially “executive function” and “self regulation” which might increase the probability of not adopting or stopping adverse health behaviors, which are on average less well developed in those growing up in lower socioeconomic groups, presumably also as a result of the stress impacting them as young children.
The relatively good news from the Stringhini study is that the prevalence of many adverse health behaviors did decrease over the time period studied. For smoking, the prevalence decrease from 10.1% to 4.8% in the highest, and from 29.7% to 16.5% in the lowest socioeconomic groups and unhealthy diet from 5.8% to 1.0% and 14.9% to 5.2% respectively diet; on the other hand, sedentary behavior increased from 6.6% to 21.4% in the highest and from 35.4% to 41.6% in the lowest socioeconomic groups. Again, extending this to the whole British population is uncertain, and in the US the prevalence of obesity (a combination of both poor diet and physical inactivity) is growing at a staggering rate in all age groups, and especially in low socioeconomic groups.
The take-home message is that all people should be encouraged and supported to adopt healthful and eschew unhealthful behaviors, particularly related to smoking, diet and exercise, and the degree to which any programs can be demonstrated to be successful for large numbers of individuals or, better yet, groups, they should be promulgated and replicated. However, to have greater success, programs will have to strike closer at the etiologies of these behaviors. A lower level, achievable (and achieved in some jurisdictions) by legislation, exemplified by indoor smoking bans, calorie and fat content labeling of foods, especially fast foods, and banning the use of toys as gifts in fast-food meals (as recently done in Santa Clara County, CA), can have much more significant impact (see “Promoting health through tobacco taxation” by Ali and Koplan from JAMA, and “Cardiovascular effect of bans on smoking in public places: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Meyer, et. al., in JACC, cited in The Public’s Health: Smoking and Salt, February 6, 2010).
The greatest changes, however, involve even more significant societal changes: the elimination of the wide disparity in income and opportunity, thus socioeconomic status, and of racism. Health-focused, as well as social justice focused, policies should try to achieve this end, but in the US it will be a long time coming. In the meantime, it remains a good idea to choose your parents wisely; being born white and rich still significantly enhances your health status.
.
I have recently discussed (Poverty, Primary Care and the Cost of Medical Care, February 10, 2010) the “Whitehall Studies” conducted by Sir Michael Marmot and colleagues that “demonstrate that there is a more or less linear correlation between health (including longevity) and increasing social class". That piece discussed the report of a panel headed by Marmot, “Fair Society, Healthy Lives”, that shows that these problems have not been resolved. A new paper from the follow-up “Whitehall II” study, conducted by Silvia Stringhini and colleagues from both Britain and France, “Association of socioeconomic position with health behavior and mortality”, (JAMA Mar24/31,2010;303(12):1159-66), examined the role of alcohol, tobacco, diet, and physical activity in accounting for these differences over an extraordinarily long 24-year follow-up period.
Stringhini, et. al., found that in fact adverse health behaviors accounted for about 42% of the increase in mortality in lower socioeconomic groups (which was about 1.6 times as high in lowest than in the highest socioeconomic group). Smoking was the most powerful negative factor, with the others contributing a smaller amount. “There was a marked social gradient in health behaviors at baseline. Participants in the lower socioeconomic positions were more likely to smoke, abstain from alcohol consumption, follow an unhealthy diet, and be physically inactive and less likely to consume heavy amounts of alcohol.” Most of this is consistent with the observations of physicians and epidemiologists in the US, with the surprising exception of alcohol use being lower in lower income groups. This may be a difference between the US and Britain; in Britain, in the 20th century, cirrhosis was a disease largely of the upper class who could afford the highly taxed, and high alcohol content, distilled spirits. Another possibility (and this is my speculation, not data) is that the lower socioeconomic group studied by Whitehall II in England may have a large component of Muslims, who do not drink. In any case, the impact of smoking, poor diet, and physical inactivity accounted for a significant part of the class difference in mortality, although it did not account for even the majority of that difference.
Thus, this study supports two well-established assumptions: 1) that adverse health behaviors are a significant contributor to ill health and higher age-adjusted mortality rate, and 2) that people in lower socioeconomic groups have worse health and higher mortality rates, much, but not all, of which can be associated with their higher rates of adverse health behaviors. Previous work on the results of Whitehall have suggested, and demonstrated evidentiary support for, the hypothesis that stress in daily life (of worrying about how you will pay the rent and feed your family, whether you are going to lose your job, or, particularly in the case of ethnic and racial minorities, not only whether you will be arrested or harassed by the authorities but the indignities of ongoing discrimination), mediated through only partially understood neurochemical pathways, account for much of this effect. However, to the extent that people can divest themselves of risky health behaviors, they can decrease, if not eliminate, their higher risk for adverse health outcomes.
In the same issue of JAMA, James R. Dunn of McMaster University in Canada, has a very insightful editorial commenting on the Stringhini article, “Health behavior vs the stress of low socioeconomic status and health outcomes” (JAMA, Mar24/31, 2010;303(12):1199-1200). He repeats the caution of the Whitehall authors that the population studied in the Whitehall cohort may not be representative of the British population overall (and, by extension, of the US or Canadian population). Indeed, the cohort was originally selected by Marmot and colleagues to reduce the confounding that might come from general studies of people in different classes because of occupational risks. Dunn points to the association of the stress of low socioeconomic status and the prevalence of adverse health behaviors: “…it is possible to consider both factors [stress and behavior] as part of the same pathway between relatively low socioeconomic status and health. Unhealthy behaviors are more common among individuals with low socioeconomic status because of the stress of low socioeconomic status. Accordingly, there is a direct causal pathway between low socioeconomic status and poor health as well as an indirect causal pathway through health behavior, which reinforce one another over the lifecourse.” That is, the stress of being poor makes you more likely to do unhealthful things that we know about (smoking, poor diet, low physical activity) that make you less healthy, and also makes you less healthy through a pathway that we don’t completely understand.
Dunn notes that while changing health behaviors in lower socioeconomic populations would be a good thing, “The problem is that traditional individually oriented health behavior education interventions are not very effective, and individuals with low socioeconomic status have been notoriously difficult to reach with such programs”. He discusses a variety of early childhood developmental characteristics, especially “executive function” and “self regulation” which might increase the probability of not adopting or stopping adverse health behaviors, which are on average less well developed in those growing up in lower socioeconomic groups, presumably also as a result of the stress impacting them as young children.
The relatively good news from the Stringhini study is that the prevalence of many adverse health behaviors did decrease over the time period studied. For smoking, the prevalence decrease from 10.1% to 4.8% in the highest, and from 29.7% to 16.5% in the lowest socioeconomic groups and unhealthy diet from 5.8% to 1.0% and 14.9% to 5.2% respectively diet; on the other hand, sedentary behavior increased from 6.6% to 21.4% in the highest and from 35.4% to 41.6% in the lowest socioeconomic groups. Again, extending this to the whole British population is uncertain, and in the US the prevalence of obesity (a combination of both poor diet and physical inactivity) is growing at a staggering rate in all age groups, and especially in low socioeconomic groups.
The take-home message is that all people should be encouraged and supported to adopt healthful and eschew unhealthful behaviors, particularly related to smoking, diet and exercise, and the degree to which any programs can be demonstrated to be successful for large numbers of individuals or, better yet, groups, they should be promulgated and replicated. However, to have greater success, programs will have to strike closer at the etiologies of these behaviors. A lower level, achievable (and achieved in some jurisdictions) by legislation, exemplified by indoor smoking bans, calorie and fat content labeling of foods, especially fast foods, and banning the use of toys as gifts in fast-food meals (as recently done in Santa Clara County, CA), can have much more significant impact (see “Promoting health through tobacco taxation” by Ali and Koplan from JAMA, and “Cardiovascular effect of bans on smoking in public places: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Meyer, et. al., in JACC, cited in The Public’s Health: Smoking and Salt, February 6, 2010).
The greatest changes, however, involve even more significant societal changes: the elimination of the wide disparity in income and opportunity, thus socioeconomic status, and of racism. Health-focused, as well as social justice focused, policies should try to achieve this end, but in the US it will be a long time coming. In the meantime, it remains a good idea to choose your parents wisely; being born white and rich still significantly enhances your health status.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)