Social Conditions and Self-Management Are More Powerful Determinants of Health Than Access to Care
T. Pincus,Robert Esther,D. DeWalt,Leigh Callahan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-129-5-199809010-00011
IF: 39.2
1998-09-01
Annals of Internal Medicine
Abstract:Professional medical organizations, including the American College of Physicians and the American Medical Association, have advocated universal access to medical care as a major initiative toward improving the health of the U.S. population [1, 2]. We agree fully with this advocacy but are concerned that improved access to care may have limited effects on improving health. Access to medical services is clearly critical to outcomes in the inpatient hospital, the setting of most traditional medical education, training, and research (and of most public perceptions as the primary arena of medical activities). However, most current medical care occurs in outpatient settings, where the actions and life situations of patients may determine outcomes as much as the actions of health professionals and the health care system do. Access alone does not ensure benefits of available medical services. Our concerns about possible limitations of access in improving health in the population are based in large part on evidence of persistent and widening disparities in health according to socioeconomic status. Such disparities have been reported in most developed nations [3-11], including Australia [12], Belgium [13], Denmark [14], Finland [15], Italy [16], Japan [17], the Netherlands [18], New Zealand [19], Norway [20], Russia [21], Spain [22], Sweden [23], the United Kingdom [24, 25], and the United States [3, 6, 26, 27]. Many of these countries have had longstanding universal access to medical care. Low socioeconomic status is associated with poor outcomes in most conditions [3, 4, 26, 28], including cardiovascular [3, 26, 29-31], pulmonary [32], rheumatic [33-36], neoplastic [37], and psychiatric diseases [38]. Disparities in health according to socioeconomic status are often regarded in the medical literature as demographic or psychosocial concerns and usually are attributed to limited access to medical care or to biomedical risk factors. Associations of good health with access to insurance and medical care lead some to believe that better health in people of high socioeconomic status is a result of more frequent interactions with the health care system and that improved access to care is the primary approach to improving the health of persons of low socioeconomic status. However, persons of low socioeconomic status currently use many medical services more often than persons of high socioeconomic status [39], perhaps because of ineffective use of services by persons with a greater burden of disease [40]. In most studies that have included a marker of socioeconomic status, such as level of education, occupation, type of housing, or income, these markers often explain health status more effectively than biomedical risk factors do; the primary exception is diseases associated with a single gene [3, 4, 26, 28]. We summarize a few of the many reports on disparities in health according to socioeconomic status and suggest that poor health in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations results more from unfavorable social conditions [41-43] and ineffective self-management [44-47] than from limitations in access to care [7, 28, 48-51]. If this suggestion is correct even in part, it may have important implications concerning priorities for physicians and their professional organizations in health care reform [1, 2, 52]. Investment in education, improvement in social conditions, and research on self-management may improve health in persons of low socioeconomic status more than expanded access to medical care [7, 28, 48-51]. Such investments are unlikely to be made without strong support from physicians. We hope to stimulate further discussion among health professionals and their organizations of possible initiatives beyond universal access to the health care system to improve the health of the U.S. population. We suggest that broadening the approach beyond advocacy for access will increase the capacity of health professionals to influence health favorably. Job Classification Predicted Cardiovascular Mortality in the United Kingdom Better than Blood Pressure, Smoking, and Cholesterol Level Combined The cardiovascular mortality rate over 7 years in 17 530 London civil servants (Figure 1) was more than 4% among unskilled workers (other in Figure 1, left), compared with 3% among clerical workers, 2% among professionals or executives, and less than 1% among administrators [29, 53]. The presence of identified risk factors, including cholesterol level, blood pressure, and smoking, explained less than half of these differences (Figure 1, right). All of these persons were working at the onset of the observation period and had access to medical care through the National Health Service. Therefore, neither biomedical risk factors nor limited access to medical care can account for most of the differences, and the major component of differences in the risk for cardiovascular death remains unexplained. We suggest an explanation based on lifestyle and behavioral considerations. Figure 1. Left. Right. Widening Disparities in Health according to Socioeconomic Status Despite the Presence of a National Health Service Disparities in health according to socioeconomic status have widened since the 1970s in the Netherlands [18], the United States [54, 55], and the United Kingdom [56]. These trends may in part reflect unequal access to medical care. However, data from the United Kingdom indicate that access to the National Health Service has not eliminated disparities in health according to socioeconomic status. In fact, these disparities have become greater as medical care has become more complex and, presumably, more effective (Figure 2). Figure 2. Mortality rates from all causes, lung cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), and cerebrovascular disease (Cerebro VD) from 1970 to 1972 and 1979 to 1983 among men 20 to 64 years of age (top) according to occupational status and among married women 20 to 54 years of age (bottom) according to their husbands' occupations. Higher Prevalence of Most Diseases Associated with Low Socioeconomic Status in the United States In addition to significant associations of low socioeconomic status with morbidity and mortality after the development of many diseases, noncompletion of high school in the United States is associated with a considerably higher likelihood of developing many chronic diseases before the age of 65 years. This association is explained only in part by age, ethnicity, sex, and smoking status [6] (Table 1). Among persons younger than 65 years of age, arthritis and hypertension occur in about 25% of persons with less than 8 years of education (about 10% of the 1978 total U.S. population), in 13% to 15% of those with 9 to 11 years of education (about 15% of the 1978 total U.S. population), in 9% to 11% of those with 12 years of education (about 38% of the 1978 total U.S. population), and in 6% to 7% of those with more than 12 years of formal education (about 37% of the population). Similar patterns are evident for back pain, heart attack, peptic ulcer, diabetes, chronic bronchitis, renal disease, epilepsy, stroke, and tuberculosis. Table 1. Persons in the 1978 U.S. Population 18 to 64 Years of Age Reporting Health Conditions, according to Level of Formal Education* Several exceptions are notable. The prevalence of asthma, allergies, and thyroid disease is similar in all groups, and the prevalence of multiple sclerosis is greater in those with education. Disparities in the prevalence of neoplastic diseases according to level of education were explained by age and smoking status [6]. Nonetheless, the odds of developing musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, renal, pulmonary, or psychiatric disease before the age of 65 years were two to three times greater for persons who did not complete high school than for those who completed high school [10]. These odds are considerably higher than the odds of developing these diseases according to most recognized biomedical risk factors other than a single gene. Again, this finding is explained only in small part by age, sex, ethnicity, and smoking status [6] or by limited access to medical care. Mortality according to Level of Education in the -Blocker Heart Attack Trial Unexplained by Extensive Cardiovascular Measures In the -Blocker Heart Attack Trial to prevent death in patients who had recovered from myocardial infarction [30], the subsequent 3-year mortality rate was lower in patients who took propranolol (8%) than in men who took placebo (13%). However, these differences were considerably less marked than differences according to level of formal education in both the -blocker and the placebo groups (Figure 3). Life stress or social isolation rather than extensive physiologic measures explained differences according to educational level. Other studies have identified these psychosocial variables as important predictors of death [57, 58]. Even in the setting of a clinical trial with extensive access to medical care, biomedical risk factors explain only a small component of associations between socioeconomic status and mortality. Figure 3. Comparison of mortality rates in the -Blocker Heart Attack Trial according to random assignment to placebo or drug, level of formal education, life stress, and social isolation. Discussion The data presented above and considerable additional data [28, 33-35, 59-63] suggest that limited access to medical services is not the primary basis for socioeconomic disparities in health. Emphasis on access emerges in part from the spectacular success of the biomedical model [28, 64], the dominant paradigm of 20th-century medicine, in acute inpatient medical activities. Clearly, access is required for good outcomes in acute medical events. In outpatient care [28, 35, 45, 46, 52, 64], however, the biomedical model is not so effective. Less than 20% of symptoms reported at physician visits are explained by detectable organic pathology [65],