New IOM report on US versus…everyone else

2013-01-09 02.01.45 pmThe Institute of Medicine has released a major new report today on the reasons why the United States seems to have poorer health, despite its greater wealth, as compared to other industrialized countries.

The report reviews evidence on life expectancy and health in the United States, comparing U.S. data with statistics from 16 “peer” countries—other high-income democracies in western Europe, as well as Canada, Australia, and Japan. The report looks somewhat historically, but focuses mostly on data from the late 1990s through 2008.

2013-01-09 02.01.22 pm

Unsurprisingly, the data reveal that Americans are less healthy that their peers, despite paying more for healthcare. That’s not new. What’s particularly striking, however, is that Americans have been dying at younger ages than people in almost all other high-income countries. A lot of Americans actually aren’t making it to age 50. This disadvantage has been getting worse for three decades, especially among women.

2013-01-09 02.00.53 pm

There were nine areas that Americans fared worse in rather consistently:

  1. infant mortality and low birth weight
  2. injuries and homicides
  3. adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections
  4. HIV and AIDS
  5. drug-related deaths
  6. obesity and diabetes
  7. heart disease
  8. chronic lung disease
  9. disability

Perhaps most significantly, this report was one of the first times that an official US government body acknowledged that all of this effect is probably not due to bad behaviors or the healthcare system. While some of this problem is undoubtedly from poor healthcare access and poor quality of healthcare for the impoverished, it’s estimated that less than 20% of avoidable mortality in the US is due to poor healthcare. Also, our health behaviors aren’t universally worse than others; Americans actually smoke and drink less than Europeans, though we do eat more calories, abuse drugs more, don’t wear seat belts as much, and seem to drink-and-drive as well as shoot each other a lot more. But the report also squarely indicated that evidence is accumulating for two other major factors: (1) socioeconomic status: social mobility is worst in the US and while overall average income is higher, inequality is higher too, producing an overall markedly large pool of the impoverished, as well as lower rates of education among the young and really poor safety net programs to buffer against poverty, all of which are strongly related to health outcomes; and (2) the built environment in the US tends to be designed around automobiles, theoretically discouraging physical activity and contributing to obesity. We are beating everyone else on the obesity ranking…(we’re number 1! USA, USA!).

This message might have been lost in translation; while The New York Times and other media coverage seemed to focus a lot on health behaviors, the IOM report itself actually focused quite a lot on socioeconomic factors.

One response to “New IOM report on US versus…everyone else

  1. This is where I saw this study reported first. Other accounts were not nearly as useful in understanding what is happening in the US. I appreciate the you giving the real story. I have been following a number of indicators for a few years linking the SAD – Standard American Diet to health care costs and comparing to other countries.

    I agree that personal behavior is not the prime driver of these indicators. One issue, hopefully, is on its way to partial resolution – universal health care – John McDonough callsthe ACA a civil rights law in his book – Inside National Health Reform. However, we are not going to get there without outlawing for-profit health insurance for basic care (like Switzerland), substantially decreasing the waste in healthcare (another IOM report), redirect farm subsidies and land from BIG AG use to local and small farm vegetable growth.

    In addition, because so many Americans are addicted to sugar and fat and salt primarily purchased in highly palatable processed foods, doesn’t it seem to be time to use the tobacco model, not just as a soda tax, but all sugar and fat and salt in processed food. The tobacco model worked, particularly the tax. I call it a RISK tax, as these substances are – a risk to chronic, non-communicable, preventable disease. I have been talking to fsome folks about it for 3 years now. The idea, when the details are provided, is well received. But of course, it is followed by “there is no political will”. The soda tax idea is limited and the use of an outdated method of calculation – a penny per ounce – cannot be applied to anything other than a liquid. I say do it big – take on all the “pushers” at once and give the poor free vegetables.

    Whoever reads this, thank you for listening.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s