The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Correspondence
PreviousPrevious
Volume 358:2847-2848 June 26, 2008 Number 26
NextNext

Does Preventive Care Save Money?

 

This Article
- PDF
-PDA Full Text

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited
-E-mail When Letters Appear

More Information
-Related Article
 by Cohen, J. T.
-PubMed Citation
To the Editor: In the Perspective article by Cohen et al. (Feb. 14 issue),1 a narrow construction of what constitutes prevention leads to erroneous conclusions about its potential impact and cost-effectiveness. The authors do not address preventive interventions that occur outside the doctor's office. These include basic public health services and many other policies that bear directly on health (e.g., seat-belt laws and smoke-free policies). Health gains achieved through population-based approaches often exceed those that can be accomplished clinically, and these approaches are often cost-saving or highly cost-effective.2

Even if one considers only prevention in clinical settings, many high-value services are substantially underutilized. For example, less than 50% of the target population receives smoking-cessation services, counseling about aspirin use, colorectal-cancer screening, and influenza vaccines. Increasing use of these four services to 90% would save more than 100,000 lives annually.3

Policymakers should support investment in prevention for the right reasons — namely, to improve health at an acceptable cost, even if the services will not reduce overall spending. If reduced spending is the goal, then policymakers should discourage use of low-value services, both therapeutic and preventive.


Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., M.P.H.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Corinne G. Husten, M.D., M.P.H.
Jordan H. Richland, M.P.H., M.P.A.
Partnership for Prevention
Washington, DC 20036
chusten{at}prevent.org

References

  1. Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates. N Engl J Med 2008;358:661-663. [Free Full Text]
  2. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. The guide to community preventive services: what works to promote health? New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  3. Preventive care: a national profile on use, disparities, and health benefits. Washington, DC: Partnership for Prevention, 2007.

 
The authors reply: Fielding and colleagues correctly highlight community-based interventions as important preventive strategies to evaluate, but they fail to note that our analysis of 1500 comparisons described in 599 articles drawn from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org) did in fact include a number of community-based interventions. Like clinical preventive services, nonclinical interventions are sometimes expensive (e.g., a ban on cell-phone use while people are driving, which costs $380,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, or QALY1) and sometimes cost-saving (e.g., folic acid fortification of grains2 and condom distribution3). Other interventions cost the health care system more money than they save but generally deliver good value,4 meaning that they cost less than commonly recognized benchmarks for cost per QALY.5

We also agree that, as we stated in our article, "In addition to determining which preventive measures and treatments are most efficient, it will be necessary to identify those that are not yet fully deployed and those that could serve a large population and bring about substantial aggregate improvements in health at an acceptable cost."


Joshua T. Cohen, Ph.D.
Peter J. Neumann, Sc.D.
Tufts Medical Center
Boston, MA 02111


Milton C. Weinstein, Ph.D.
Harvard School of Public Health
Boston, MA 02115

References

  1. Cohen JT, Graham JD. A revised economic analysis of restrictions on the use of cell phones while driving. Risk Anal 2003;23:5-17. [CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  2. Tice JA, Ross E, Coxson PG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of vitamin therapy to lower plasma homocysteine levels for the prevention of coronary heart disease: effect of grain fortification and beyond. JAMA 2001;286:936-943. [Free Full Text]
  3. Bedimo AL, Pinkerton SD, Cohen DA, Gray B, Farley TA. Condom distribution: a cost-utility analysis. Int J STD AIDS 2002;13:384-392. [Free Full Text]
  4. Tengs TO, Osgood ND, Chen LL. The cost-effectiveness of intensive national school-based anti-tobacco education: results from the tobacco policy model. Prev Med 2001;33:558-570. [CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  5. Weinstein MC. How much are Americans willing to pay for a quality-adjusted life year? Med Care 2008;46:343-345. [Web of Science][Medline]

 

This Article
- PDF
-PDA Full Text

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited
-E-mail When Letters Appear

More Information
-Related Article
 by Cohen, J. T.
-PubMed Citation

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.