The UK doesn't provide enough medical care for some – and too much for others

Doctors and patients need to question unnecessary procedures, writes Dr Margaret McCartney.

Earlier this year, I was in Washington listening to the reasons why the "Choosing Wisely" campaign was set up. This is the country which spends the most per head on healthcare in the world. The doctor on the podium was not happy. We are doing too many tests, too many procedures, and prescribing too many medicines, he said. Doctors needed to wisen up and stop doing do much stuff. “Basically; what we're saying is; don’t be stupid.”

Choosing Wisely is a campaign backed by the full force of the American medical hierarchy – from the American College of Surgeons to the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Each learned institution has come up with “Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question.” So the American Academy of Paediatrics says that CT scans for minor head injuries aren’t necessary (when, currently, 50 per cent of children attending in these circumstances are being sent to the CT scanner.) The College of Physicians says that you shouldn’t do X-rays in straightforward low back pain. Elsewhere: don’t use high dose antacid drugs when you can use them at low dose – or not at all. Don’t use feeding tubes for people with dementia – concentrate on helping the person feed by mouth. They are pledges to do better medicine, but also, crucially, to do fewer tests and procedures, and prescribe fewer pills. And to be "less stupid" - stop doing things that the evidence tells us doesn’t work.

This is a volte-face for American doctors. But it's also a contrast to the UK, where the more-is-more philosophy has been gathering pace amongst medics. The contract which GPs work to is in many cases a payment per intervention: We check blood pressures and cholesterols because when patients come in to see us, there are small boxes on the computer screen which tell us they are due (we are paid when we hit the target); campaigns from the Department of Health urge us to achieve more ‘early” diagnosis; health secretary Jeremy Hunt has been vocal in criticising GPs for not diagnosing dementia as often as we apparently should.

The message is that faster diagnosis and more medicine is better. The US still advocates multiple non-evidence-based interventions, in vastly greater quantity than the UK: for example, breast and internal examinations are routine for a straightforward prescription of the contraceptive pill.

Even so, we still have an awful lot of treatment of conditions that would never have brought the patient to any harm. For example, for a patient who has never had a heart attack or stroke, treating cholesterol with statins for 5 years will stop 1.6 per cent of people having a heart attack, and 0.4 per cent from having a stroke. This means that the other 98 per cent get no benefit – but they still get the harms. The risk of developing diabetes caused by the statins is 1.5 per cent. And the cost of overtreatment is not just financial cost, or side effects, but also of making perfectly healthy citizens into patients.

Now the US is keen to talk about doing less. Quite right: it is unsustainable to spend as much as they do on tests, procedures or medications and afford it. But the twin of cost is effectiveness; using less unnecessary medicine saves money, but also reduces harm. During the last US election, when some US commentators accused the National Institute of Clinical Excellence’s judgements as being that of a “death panel” they failed to see the point: not all medicine is good for us. Some of it is decidedly bad for us. Some of it simply doesn’t work.

Jeremy Hunt’s idea of "early diagnosis" for dementia is a case in point. He wants people who have concerns about their memory to be rapidly assessed for dementia. The problem is that most people will have experienced problems with their memory, and the vast majority do not have dementia. Many memory problems in older people can be low grade and not particularly medically concerning. Known as MCI, moderate cognitive impairment, it progresses to dementia in only a minority of cases. But because the psychological testing and the brain scans are not highly specific for dementia, it means false positives are common – some people will be told they have dementia when they don’t.

Meantime, the people who really do have problems with not just memory but their ability to function because of it are less likely to see their doctor to discuss it – and more likely to have a serious underlying cause. The paradox is that the most healthy get tests they don’t need, and diagnoses they don’t benefit from, while the most ill get least care – as usual.

This is the real crunch, and the prize. The Inverse Care Law – that most healthcare goes to the people who benefit least from it – was described by GP Julian Tudor Hart in 1971. We have progressed very little with reversing it. Perhaps we can, now. More and more of the medical establishment can see that we have a problem: too much medicine for some, but not enough medical care for others. Facing up to the stupidly of the current status quo is a start.

Photograph: Getty Images

Margaret McCartney is a GP in Glasgow who broadcasts for Radio 4's Inside Health and is author of The Patient Paradox: Why Sexed-Up Medicine is Bad for Your Health.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.