An organization called the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation has launched a campaign to reduce the cost of health care by reducing “unnecessary” tests, drugs, and procedures. A bare-bones website lists them. For example:
Don’t routinely do diagnostic testing in patients with chronic urticaria [hives].
Here is the explanation of that recommendation:
In the overwhelming majority of patients with chronic urticaria, a definite etiology is not identified. Limited laboratory testing may be warranted to exclude underlying causes. Targeted laboratory testing based on clinical suspicion is appropriate. Routine extensive testing is neither cost effective nor associated with improved clinical outcomes. Skin or serum-specific IgE testing for inhalants or foods is not indicated, unless there is a clear history implicating an allergen as a provoking or perpetuating factor for urticaria.
Not clear. Are they trying to say the tests are useless (“not associated with improved clinical outcomes”)?
My broad question about the campaign is: What does “unnecessary” mean? This is not explained on the website nor in a Washington Post article about the campaign.
A nearby article on the Post website is about “the downside of mammography”. It says:
A study published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine adds to a growing body of evidence that the potential risks of routine breast-cancer screening via mammography might in fact outweigh such screening’s benefits.
That’s clearer. It seems to be saying the costs outweigh the benefits. (What are “potential” risks? I thought all risks were potential.) But that doesn’t mean that breast cancer screening is “unnecessary”, it means it is a bad idea.
If the foundation is trying to say that a lot of medicine does more harm than good, then, please, say so. If they are trying to say that a lot of medicine is useless, then, please, say so. Stop being polite.
I contacted the foundation to ask them about this.
Thanks to Bryan Castañeda.