Adverse reactions to drugs - that's still an imprecise science.

But the overprescribed antibiotics? More than enough blame to go around.

One thing I've seen in the overpresciption of antibiotics is going to be hard to overcome.

When kids in daycare get sick, the typical rule is that the kid must be symptom free for 24 hours before being returned to the daycare. Thus, if the child gets sick, and the parent must collect that child from daycare, often, under these rules, the parent must also take the next day off as well (at a minimum.) Thus, parents will often run to their pediatricians to get some sort of antibiotic to put their kids on (no matter if the illness is caused by a virus) if only so that they can get the kid back in daycare as soon as possible.

Recently, in the daycare (Goddard school) where we have my daughter, parents were getting prescription antibiotics for their kids with viruses for that very reason. The Goddard school is relatively upscale and the parents who put their kids in that place should be relatively knowledgable.

When it comes to over-prescribing, there is something else to keep in mind. Our society has become so litigous, that doctors already have malpractice insurance premiums that are through the office roof. As a result, doctors often order tests that aren't really necessary and prescribe drugs that probably really aren't needed just for CYA purposes.

Unfortunately, they know that when people die as stated in that report, a family will often turn around and sue the doctor, the hospital and possibly even the drug companies, if a drug is involved.

So someone like me, with no health insurance, because I can't afford the premiums -- even through an employer, has a really hard time, because the doctor's fees have to be so high to cover their insurance.

And we do better in 4 common diseases than England.

It was in al-Guardian around Sept. 30, IIRC.

That's what overprescription and lawsuits will get you.

>>This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year
---
Statistics are meaningless without perspective. How many medical and surgical procedures are performed in a year, and WHAT PERCENTAGE are unnecessary? Cause death? Cause serious injury?

Anybody know?

Statistics are meaningless without perspective. How many medical and surgical procedures are performed in a year, and WHAT PERCENTAGE are unnecessary? Cause death? Cause serious injury?

Anybody know?

I'll try a quick back of the envelope calculation. The Health care industry is estimated at 1.6 trillion dollars. This report suggests that 282 billion is wasted on unnecessary surgeries, drugs, and other procedures.

Simple division leads to a number around 17%. Add appropriate error bars and it's likely between 10-25% of all medical procedures and drugs are unnecessary.

If you can find better numbers, please do.

Also don't forget that many health professionals are in that business because they want to do things. I have a cervical condition that a neurosurgeon wanted to attempt to correct by cracking two vertebrae and putting inserts. He said this would reduce the chance of me falling and being paralyzed.

I looked into it. The number of such accidents in my situation was about 4 per year in a population of 300,000,000. If I had the operation, I could expect to be speechless for 6 weeks (I'm a professor). I had a 1 in 1000 chance of dying while under anesthesia, a 1-10,000 chance of one year speechless, a 1-100,000 chance of never speaking again, and a non-negligible chance of paralysis from the operation of 1-1,000,000. When I pointed out that I would be increasing my risk relative to my perceived benefit, the surgeon was amazed. I wouldn't trade a 1-28,000,000 for his odds. After all, he basically exists (even aside from monetary rewards) to operate on people. An often overlooked, I think, bias.

Also don't forget that many health professionals are in that business because they want to do things. I have a cervical condition that a neurosurgeon wanted to attempt to correct by cracking two vertebrae and putting inserts. He said this would reduce the chance of me falling and being paralyzed.

I looked into it. The number of such accidents in my situation was about 4 per year in a population of 300,000,000. If I had the operation, I could expect to be speechless for 6 weeks (I'm a professor). I had a 1 in 1000 chance of dying while under anesthesia, a 1-10,000 chance of one year speechless, a 1-100,000 chance of never speaking again, and a non-negligible chance of paralysis from the operation of 1-1,000,000. When I pointed out that I would be increasing my risk relative to my perceived benefit, the surgeon was amazed. I wouldn't trade a 1-28,000,000 for his odds. After all, he basically exists (even aside from monetary rewards) to operate on people. An often overlooked, I think, bias.

Also don't forget that many health professionals are in that business because they want to do things. I have a cervical condition that a neurosurgeon wanted to attempt to correct by cracking two vertebrae and putting inserts. He said this would reduce the chance of me falling and being paralyzed.

I looked into it. The number of such accidents in my situation was about 4 per year in a population of 300,000,000. If I had the operation, I could expect to be speechless for 6 weeks (I'm a professor). I had a 1 in 1000 chance of dying while under anesthesia, a 1-10,000 chance of one year speechless, a 1-100,000 chance of never speaking again, and a non-negligible chance of paralysis from the operation of 1-1,000,000. When I pointed out that I would be increasing my risk relative to my perceived benefit, the surgeon was amazed. I wouldn't trade a 1-28,000,000 for his odds. After all, he basically exists (even aside from monetary rewards) to operate on people. An often overlooked, I think, bias.

I hate retrospective epidemiologic studies as they almost always are only as good as the data they use and the data selected. They always invoke more questions than provide any answers. A whole realm of health care they fail to address in addition to a measure of adverse effects of intervention is the question of whether or not much of what we do does any good? Almost every common everyday ailment has become "medicalized". Can't sleep? Chances are you have a lot on your mind - but you better see a doctor you could have X,Y,Z. Sad because your dog died, your job sucks and it's winter - you better see a doctor because you may be suffering a serious clinical depression. Have a headache? You better see a doctor - you might have a brain tumor or an aneurysm. My favorite new buzz word is "preventable death". Just how the hell can one seriously determine that?