Category Archives: Uncategorized

Is Health Care a Right?

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/02/is-health-care-a-right

Image result for is healthcare a right

It’s a question that divides Americans, including those from my home town. But it’s possible to find common ground.

Is health care a right? The United States remains the only developed country in the world unable to come to agreement on an answer. Earlier this year, I was visiting Athens, Ohio, the town in the Appalachian foothills where I grew up. The battle over whether to repeal, replace, or repair the Affordable Care Act raged then, as it continues to rage now. So I began asking people whether they thought that health care was a right. The responses were always interesting.

A friend had put me in touch with a forty-seven-year-old woman I’ll call Maria Dutton. She lived with her husband, Joe, down a long gravel driveway that snaked into the woods off a rural road. “You may feel like you are in the movie ‘Deliverance,’ ” she said, but it wasn’t like that at all. They had a tidy, double-wide modular home with flowered wallpaper, family pictures on every surface, a vase of cut roses on a sideboard, and an absurdly friendly hound in the yard. Maria told me her story sitting at the kitchen table with Joe.

She had joined the Army out of high school and married her recruiter—Joe is eleven years older—but after a year she had to take a medical discharge. She had developed severe fatigue, double vision, joint and neck pains, and muscle weakness. At first, doctors thought that she had multiple sclerosis. When that was ruled out, they were at a loss. After Joe left the military, he found steady, secure work as an electrical technician at an industrial plant nearby. Maria did secretarial and office-manager jobs and had a daughter. But her condition worsened, and soon she became too ill to work.

“I didn’t even have enough energy to fry a pound of hamburger,” she said. “I’d have to fry half of it and then sit down, rest, and get up and fry the rest. I didn’t have enough energy to vacuum one room of the house.” Eventually, she was diagnosed with chronic-fatigue syndrome and depression. She became addicted to the opioids prescribed for her joint pains and was started on methadone. Her liver began to fail. In 2014, she was sent two hundred miles away to the Cleveland Clinic for a liver-transplant evaluation. There, after more than two decades of Maria’s deteriorating health, doctors figured out what the problem was: sarcoidosis, an inflammatory condition that produces hardened nodules in organs throughout the body. The doctors gave her immunosuppressive medication, and the nodules shrank away. Within a year, she had weaned herself off the methadone.

“It was miraculous,” she said. In middle age, with her daughter grown up and in the Army Reserves herself, Maria got her life back and returned to school. All along, she’d had coverage through her husband’s work. “They have amazing insurance,” she said. “I think one year the insurance paid out two hundred thousand dollars. But we paid out, too.”

This was an understatement. Between a six-thousand-dollar deductible and hefty co-pays and premiums, the Duttons’ annual costs reached fifteen thousand dollars. They were barely getting by. Then one day in 2001 Joe blacked out, for no apparent reason, at a Girl Scout meeting for their daughter and fell down two flights of stairs, resulting in a severe concussion. It put him out of work for six months. Given the health-care costs and his loss of income, the couple ran out of money.

“We had to file for bankruptcy,” Joe said. He told me this reluctantly. It took them more than five years to dig out of the hole. He considered the bankruptcy “pretty shameful,” he said, and had told almost no one about it, not even his family. (This was why they didn’t want me to use their names.) He saw it as a personal failure—not the government’s. In fact, the whole idea that government would get involved in the financing of health care bothered him. One person’s right to health care becomes another person’s burden to pay for it, he said. Taking other people’s money had to be justified, and he didn’t see how it could be in cases like this.

“Everybody has a right to access health care,” he allowed, “but they should be contributing to the cost.” He pointed out that anyone could walk into a hospital with an emergency condition, get treated, and be billed afterward. “Yes, they may have collectors coming after them,” he said. “But I believe everybody should contribute for the treatment they receive.”

Polling Spotlight: A silver lining for the GOP on Obamacare repeal

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/27/polling-spotlight-a-silver-lining-for-the-gop-on-obamacare-repeal/

Image result for silver lining

There is good reason to question the assumption that by failing once again to pass legislation repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. Although the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) could not analyze in its usual detail the consequences of Graham-Cassidy, it was able to determine that the legislation would cut federal funding for Medicaid by more than $1 trillion over the next decade, throwing millions of low-income Americans off the rolls.

This outcome would have generated a huge political problem for Republicans. A Public Religion Research Institute poll released Monday found 69 percent of Americans opposed to cuts in Medicaid, with only 28 percent in favor. The opposition included 78 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Independents—and 55 percent of Republicans. In a related finding, nearly 45 percent of Americans are worried that they or a member of their family will lose health coverage in the coming year.

No doubt, failing to act on Obamacare will anger a portion of the Republican base, adding fuel to the insurrection against the Republican establishment and depressing turnout in states and districts where Republican incumbents who support the party’s leadership are running for reelection. But in the long run, it would have been more politically damaging to deprive low-income Americans, including millions of Trump supporters in red states, of the Medicaid coverage they would otherwise have enjoyed.

As behavioral economists have shown, the fear of loss is more acute than the hope of gain. Health policy perfectly illustrates this proposition. Whoever moves to change the status quo must convince people that they will not lose what they already have. The larger the share of people who are satisfied with the status quo, the tougher the task. This is why President Obama put his personal credibility on the line to assure Americans that if they liked their current insurance policy, they could keep it under his proposed reform. When this turned out not to be entirely true, he and his party suffered.

But now, after almost eight years of public disapproval, Obamacare has become the new status quo, the baseline from which most people assess gains and losses. While opposition to Obamacare still exists writ larger, individual provisions—some of which have been under threat from Republican alternatives—are wildly popular among Americans. By threatening to take Medicaid away from millions of people, the Republicans poked a hornets’ nest. Whatever they did after this, they would have been hurt. But by running away, they at least minimized the number of stings. Their legislative failure was a blessing, very effectively disguised.

Socialized Medicine Has Won the Health Care Debate

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

https://newrepublic.com/article/145067/socialized-medicine-won-health-care-debate

Image result for socialized medicine

 

“It’s coming down to a choice between Federalism vs Socialism,” Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed on Twitter earlier this week. “I chose Federalism of #GrahamCassidy.” His tweet echoed his words at a press conference days earlier, where he framed his Affordable Care Act repeal bill as the only way “to stop a march toward socialism.”

It’s unclear if the Republican senator realized that he was cribbing from socialist revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg. In a pamphlet composed a century ago while in prison, Luxemburg wrote: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.” Graham, presumably, didn’t mean to liken his bill to barbarism. But increasingly, those are the terms in which Americans view the health care debate—as a choice between socialism and regression. Republicans have used “socialized medicine” as a bogeyman—and they’ve steadily lost ground on the issue. Despite Graham’s attempts to portray the idea of caring for sick people regardless of their income level as a “nightmare” scenario, just 7 percent of those polled thought Graham-Cassidy would help them.

The repeated rebukes of attempts to undo Obamacare have shown that the average American is no longer moved by the threat of the “S-word.” If we are on a slippery slope toward socialized medicine, it appears that Americans are just fine with that. For the left, there’s a lot to learn from the successful battles against going backward on health care—lessons about how Trump-era politics can be used to push “socialist” policies that move Democrats, and the American public, forward in unexpected ways.

Introduced after the Bernie Sanders Medicare for all bill made its debut with 16 co-sponsors in the Senate, the Graham-Cassidy bill looked all the worse by comparison. Both bills arrived at the end of a summer of activism, a summer that has treated us repeatedly to the sight of people in wheelchairs carted out of the Senate chanting, “No cuts to Medicaid! Save our liberty!” The health care movement has been led by the people directly affected—people with disabilities, in many cases, along with veterans of the AIDS movement. They understood the power of spectacle, initiating those dramatic clashes at the Capitol. They also know better than anyone the inequalities baked into the existing system. Their fighting skills were honed fighting for decades against those who say, implicitly or explicitly, that they don’t deserve care.

Of course, politicians have long been disconnected from the American public on the issue of health care. But the movement to defend Obamacare has drawn into stark relief the difference between what people want and what politicians want to offer. Republicans like Graham banked on the attachment Americans have to the class system we like to pretend doesn’t exist. They played on the idea, honed through decades of dog-whistles, that government programs are always giveaways for the undeserving poor and people of color. As one law professor and conservative columnist complained on Twitter, “Years from now, when your child is denied a liver transplant bc of transplant diversity goals, you’ll be sorry you allowed single-payer.”

In the U.S., we tend to either deny the existence of class or treat it like a set of characteristics divorced from power relations. A Make America Great Again baseball cap, a taste for Budweiser and NASCAR—those, rather than income level or accumulated wealth, are the signifiers of class that we understand. Meritocracy is supposed to be the thing we have instead of class; you can hear it in the endless bipartisan odes to the ability to work hard and achieve anything—including, apparently, a liver transplant if necessary.

Barack Obama and Ben Carson are both heroes of the meritocratic tale, though with a different partisan inflection. Even Sanders falls victim to the meritocratic narrative at times, with his refrain that “No one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.” The implication that comes with Sanders’s qualifier is that there are some people who may, in fact, deserve to be living in poverty. If class is just about some personal preferences rather than structures that maintain inequality, then it’s fine to maintain a healthcare system that treats only those who can afford it. After all, if they just worked harder, they’d have earned that liver.

Graham’s single most tone-deaf argument to sell his bill was drawing an analogy to welfare reform. Welfare reform, of course, was sold to the country by Reagan, Gingrich, and Bill Clinton through fearmongering about undeserving black mothersand “young bucks.” Graham’s rhetoric about the size of the Medicaid budget leaned hard on this analogy, hoping that Americans resented Medicaid as much as they were taught to resent welfare.

Like welfare reform, Graham-Cassidy would have turned Medicaid and the subsidies in the ACA into block grants for the states to manage as they see fit. But the problem with health insurance is that it is designed to be used. The goal of welfare reform was to kick people off of welfare; the goal of healthcare reform was theoretically to get more people onto health insurance plans. Welfare reform increased poverty; Graham and Cassidy didn’t want to admit their bill would do the same. The analogy failed, though it told us a lot about what Republicans think of the people who use Medicaid.

The ham-handed Republican attempts to dismantle the health care system—the “socialism” warnings, the appeals to the selfishness of privileged white folks—have only reinforced the public’s support for government taking care of its citizens. It was telling how, in Monday night’s televised debate between Graham and Cassidy and Senators Sanders and Amy Klobuchar, Graham fell right into a trap, unintentionally proving his opponents’ point about what Americans want. When Sanders asked, “Do you know what the most popular health insurance program in America is? It’s not the private insurance industry,” Graham jumped in like an overeager schoolchild: “It’s Medicare,” he said.

Both Republicans and Democrats have badly misunderstood what makes Obamacare unpopular. What people don’t like are the inequities that still prevail in our health care system, not the fact that “government is too involved.” When Vox’s Sarah Kliff visited Whitley County, Kentucky, to talk to Trump voters who benefited from the ACA, she heard complaints from those buying private insurance with their subsidies that their deductibles were still too high for them to access care. Others, not surprisingly, were angry that the very poor got Medicaid, while they had to pay monthly premiums for care they rarely used. But that anger hasn’t turned them against the program. Medicaid expansion—the “socialized” part of the ACA—remains wildly popular, with 84 percent of those polled by Kaiser Family Foundation saying it’s important to keep the expansion.

The ACA’s means-testing sets up a hierarchy of plans that at times seem calculated to fuel resentment of those getting “free stuff.” It also requires hours of work—I write from personal experience, as a freelancer who has attempted to explain repeatedly that my income varies from month to month and year to year—to prove to the system that you are not getting away with something you haven’t qualified for.

The ways that people have tried to patch the gaps that remain in Obamacare, through charities and crowdfunding, have also highlighted its inequities. As Helaine Olen recently wrote in The Atlantic, charities, too, are often means-testing applicants, while crowdfunding introduces a new kind of means-testing—“means-testing for empathy,” as writer Patrick Blanchfield told me recently. Most GoFundMe or YouCaring campaigns for medical bills don’t go viral; only around 10 percent of them met their stated goals. For those who have a big social media audience, or whose particularly compelling story takes off, crowdfunding might work. But the glut of such campaigns leaves people weighing story against story, deciding who is going to get their donations. It’s health care by popularity contest.

By focusing on the not-good poll numbers for Obamacare, politicians and pundits have missed the whole point: The law didn’t go too far for Americans to get behind. It didn’t go far enough. And while single-payer opponents continue to evoke rationed care, long lines and wait times, and other problems that supposedly plague England or Canada, the public seems well aware that the reality for many Americans is far worse. By their very complaints, the pundits and politicians continually highlight the inequality in the system; the complainers are those who can afford the kind of carethat comes with personal attention, privacy, shorter waits, and avoidance of rubbing elbows with undesirables.

To move forward, then, the single-payer movement should double down on what we learned through this fight: that expanding Medicaid made it harder, not easier, to claim that the program is a “giveaway” to undeserving poor. The willingness of people with disabilities to claim and hold the spotlight—as the New Republic’s Sarah Jones has written—has helped to challenge our preconceptions about who relies on Medicaid ,and to make politicians confront those who will not be served by a market-based program. And the willingness, finally, of politicians to fight publicly for single-payer—rather than mournfully shake their heads and say it will never happen—expands the range of policies that even establishment media is willing to discuss.

Most important, we have learned that the old fearmongering tropes about socialism are no longer enough to whip Republican votes for a major plank of their own platform. If anything, the successful fight should help progressives shed their fears of boldly advocating for what they know is right and working to change public sentiment without endlessly obsessing over potential political pitfalls.

It seems that barbarism, to Graham and his ilk, is the idea that they would lose their right to segregated, high-end care to some undeserving, poor person of color. To the rest of us, however, barbarism is a system that decides who deserves to live or die by the color of their skin, the money in their bank account, the hours that they work, or their ability to work at all. This is now an American consensus. And if socialism is the medicine our system needs, the country is ready to embrace it—even by name.

Don’t take opioids off the market – make it harder to abuse them

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

https://theconversation.com/dont-take-opioids-off-the-market-make-it-harder-to-abuse-them-79730?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%201%202017%20-%2084576980&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%201%202017%20-%2084576980+CID_49b12b4a2a39e7f173235a40290664ab&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Dont%20take%20opioids%20off%20the%20market%20-%20make%20it%20harder%20to%20abuse%20them

Image result for Don’t take opioids off the market - make it harder to abuse them

How can we combat the opioid epidemic?

One of the government’s most recent suggestions is to take Opana ER, an opioid indicated for very severe pain, off the market. The request, filed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June, was linked to concerns of abuse-related HIV and hepatitis C outbreaks.

But removing access to opioids altogether isn’t the solution. There are individuals suffering from chronic pain who need or strongly benefit from these drugs. The National Center for Health Statistics estimates that a fourth of the nation’s population suffers from pain lasting longer than 24 hours. Millions more suffer from acute pain.

As a researcher who studies how pharmaceuticals are used and what effects they have, I believe it makes more sense to reduce both the supply and demand side of prescription drug abuse – without interfering with their safe and appropriate use. We can do this by reimagining how we design and prescribe addictive drugs.

Redesigning the pill

Opioids such as morphine typically relieve pain by acting on opioid receptors distributed throughout the central nervous system.

The FDA has come up with a number of ways to deter abuse by changing the way drugs work. For example, manufacturers could include an opioid antagonist in the formulation. This is essentially a drug that blocks the opioid’s effect by binding to the same receptors in the brain that the opioid would. Changing the formulation in this way would reduce the chances of experiencing the euphoric high that leads to addiction.

A good example of an opioid that does this is Targiniq ER. If Targiniq ER is crushed or dissolved, it releases Naloxone, an opioid antagonist that blocks the effect of the opioid.

Another option is to redesign the drug so it must be injected or implanted, instead of taken orally. That way, the drug would potentially have to be delivered under medical supervision. Requiring the drugs to be delivered under medical supervision could also potentially reduce the improper use of needles and related outbreaks.

Even so, no method is foolproof; abusers can sometimes manipulate a changed drug. For example, Opana ER was designed to be difficult to crush, but abusers began to dissolve the drug into a solution and injecting it. To deter drug abuse, Opana ER’s manufacturer, Endo Pharmaceuticals, devised a new medication formula that made the coating more difficult to crush or dissolve. Unfortunately, abusers still found a way to remove the coating and inject the drug.

Required prescription monitoring

Prescription drug monitoring programs have shown considerable promise in tracking potential abusers.

These programs provide emergency departments and physicians with information about a patient’s past use of controlled substances at the point of care. This can immediately flag any potential for abuse, making the doctor’s decision to prescribe opioids – or not – much easier.

Now, the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has funded at least nine states to combine their prescription monitoring programs with local hospital electronic health records and other systems already in place. These collaborations provide clinicians with a comprehensive history of controlled substance, so they can make informed decisions about patient health.

This has already had some success. For example, Illinois saw a 22 percent decrease in number of opioid prescriptions issued by prescribers and a 41 percent decrease in the number of patients who received at least one opioid prescription.

More information on the nature of the epidemic – particularly its link to rural areas – could yield clues about where and how to intervene. However, publicly available data have limited geographical information and don’t cover all information we might need, such as data about dose or treatment duration. What data are available are restricted to protect the identity of individuals.

Rather than look at patients with opioid issues, we decided to look at the doctors who prescribe the drugs. Our group has been working with the state of South Carolina to combine our prescription drug monitoring program, called South Carolina Reporting and Identification Prescription Tracking System, or SCRIPTS, with Medicaid data.

While we were able to combine only two years’ worth of data, our research led to important insights into the abuse potential within South Carolina.

By geocoding state prescription information, we found that a relatively small percentage of providers, concentrated in a few counties, accounted for most opioid prescriptions. In 2010, the top 10 percent of prescribers wrote more than half of all opioid prescriptions.

This group represents a potential target for physician education and engagement in handling pain management and appropriate use of opioids.

Rethinking how we assess patients

Many solutions to the opioid crisis tend to focus on how far it has come and how to mitigate it. However, a more sustainable approach would be to rethink the process of care and engage the patient – who is at the center of it all.

When patients are engaged in the care process, they tend to adhere more to their prescribed regimens and experience better health outcomes.

In most primary care settings, it is considered standard practice to ask patients to rate their pain on a scale from one to 10. This is a very crude measure, but now we need a more sophisticated method. Medical care should consider not only the providers’ preferences, but the patient’s, too.

We need a tool that gets at not only the level of pain an individual experiences, but also their preferences in dealing with pain. Studies showthat patient-provider communication plays an important role in pain management. If patients could share their specific concerns regarding their pain and their goals for treatment, then clinicians would be able to find the best treatment plan that is tailored to individual patient preferences.

Rather than using a standardized approach that matches pain level to doses of an analgesic or opioid, clinicians should assess each patient individually, looking at their tolerance for pain, their priorities for treatment and how they value outcomes.

By centering pain management on individual patients, we can give them a voice in the decision-making process. Given the issues with opioid abuse, I think such a pain management tool would yield a multitude of benefits, such as cutting down unnecessary prescriptions, matching the therapy to the patient’s needs and improving outcomes.

How investing in public health could cure many health care problems

Posted on by • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged , , , , , , , , , , • Leave a comment

http://theconversation.com/how-investing-in-public-health-could-cure-many-health-care-problems-84256?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%201%202017%20-%2084576980&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%201%202017%20-%2084576980+CID_49b12b4a2a39e7f173235a40290664ab&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=How%20investing%20in%20public%20health%20could%20cure%20many%20health%20care%20problems

Now that the Cassidy-Graham bill has been pulled, it’s a good time to think about concrete ways to improve health and health care in our country. Despite advances in medicine, U.S. health care spending grew to US$3.2 trillion in 2015, or 17.8 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. To contain health care costs, the U.S. needs to invest in strengthening the public health system and reconsider approaches to making all Americans healthier.

Making Americans healthier should not be a partisan issue. Conservatives and progressives alike should agree on the importance of keeping Americans healthy – both on principled and financial grounds. The sicker the American people, the more expensive their care, and much of that cost will inevitably be borne by Medicare and Medicaid. Yet major challenges loom.

As the Dean of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, I have dedicated my career to the health of populations, using science and evidence to transition to a world where health and health care are collective priorities for all. My research and that of others suggests that this situation can be improved, but it will require a major national strategy and commitment to invest in public health – one that can be highly cost-effective.

Just the facts

Take, for example, the toll of chronic disease in the U.S. As of 2012, about half of adult Americans were living with one or more chronic health conditions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and one in four adults had two or more. Treating people with chronic diseases accounts for most of our nation’s health care costs. Eighty-six percent of the nation’s annual health care expenditures are for people with chronic and mental health conditions.

This problem will only grow as the U.S. population increases. And the census projects that the population will increase by 98 million between 2014 and 2060.

At the same time, America’s crumbling infrastructure is putting many Americans’ health at risk. The country’s drinking water systems, which are foundational to health, received a D grade on the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Hazardous waste management and wastewater treatment earned only D+ grades.

The connection between health and infrastructure is strong: Infrastructure greatly affects access to healthy lifestyles. While access to clean drinking water and waste treatment are paramount, there are other examples, too.

Sidewalks and bike lanes encourage physical activity; public parks provide space for exercise and rejuvenation; and public transit is crucial to getting people out of cars, encouraging walking and, of course, reducing pollution and congestion. Subways and buses also enable older adults to reach needed services and remain in their homes longer.

Improvements to infrastructure are typically one-time expenses with recurring benefits. For example, one new sidewalk benefits an entire generation of walkers and runners. Research shows that every $1,300 New York City invested in building bike lanes in 2015 provided benefits equivalent to one additional year of life at full health over the lifetime of all city residents.

Other studies also have shown that preventing illness is far less expensive than paying for treatment. Trust for America’s Health estimates that “an investment of $10 per person per year in proven community-based programs to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and prevent smoking and other tobacco use could save the country more than $16 billion annually within five years. This is a return of $5.60 for every $1.” With ever-rising health care costs, how can we overlook such opportunities?

Prevention policies and cessation help

The focus of American health care and health-related research needs to be shifted to include prevention, not just treatment. The “Cancer Moonshot,” which has strong bipartisan support, is a vital step in this direction, providing $1.8 billion in funding over seven years.

Cancer prevention must be a high priority, and the success of this effort could inspire a national consensus around future commitments to tackle other diseases and conditions.

Another prevention priority should be healthy aging. Today there are more than 46 million Americans aged 65 years or older; and by 2060, the number of seniors is expected to more than double, according to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Census Bureau. Promoting healthy aging for older Americans should, therefore, be paramount.

And healthy aging begins far earlier than 65 or 70. Obesity, in particular, may be determined in early childhood, even before. According to research by my Mailman School colleague Andrew Rundle, prenatal exposure to air pollution raises risk for obesity in childhood. His research shows that children who are overweight or obese at age five are more likely to be overweight or obese by age 50. We also know that these adults, and increasingly children too, will be more likely to have diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

Efforts at smoking cessation should also be increased. The total economic cost of smoking in the United States is more than $300 billion a year in direct medical care and lost productivity, according to the CDC.

That’s more than we’re spending on the Cancer Moonshot annually.

Thinking big

America has extraordinary research capability. The NIH invests nearly $32.3 billion annually in medical research for the American people. Targeted cancer therapies, for instance, are the focus of much anticancer drug development, according to the National Cancer Institute. Precision Medicine is a top priority at the NIH and other research agencies. Even at $32 billion, Americans are investing in the NIH only 1 percent of what we spend on health care annually. The U.S. should build its advantage by increasing research funding to enhance the potential of breakthroughs in preventing known diseases as well as future threats.

There is reason for optimism. The good news stems in large part from the fact that chronic diseases and conditions – such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and arthritis – are among the most preventable of all health problems. At least half of these diseases could be prevented, and we are making strides. Death rates from heart disease, the No. 1 cause of death in America, have been reduced by nearly half, for instance, since 1990, according to the American Heart Association.

The growth and aging of the U.S. population and the epidemic of chronic diseases and conditions pose major challenges for America’s health care costs, no matter how health care is constructed. But a relentless focus on public health – and disease prevention in all its dimensions – is the best way to reduce pressure on costs.