It goes without saying that prevention is better than cure. That is why, in recent years, there has been a growing body of opinion in favour of putting more resources into health education and preventive measures. The argument is that ignorance of, for example, basic hygiene or the dangers of an unhealthy diet or lifestyle needs to be combated by special nationwide publicity campaigns, as well as longer-term health education.
Obviously, there is a strong human argument for catching any medical condition as early as possible. There is also an economic argument for doing so. Statistics demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treating a condition in the early stages, rather than delaying until more expensive and prolonged treatment is necessary. Then there are social or economic costs, perhaps in terms of loss of earnings for the family concerned or unemployed benefit paid by the state.
So far so good, but the difficulties start when we try to define what the 'proportion' of the budget "should be, particularly if the funds will be 'diverted from treatment'. Decisions on exactly how much of the total health budget should be spent in this way ' are not a matter for the non-specialist, but should be made on the basis of an accepted health service model.
This is the point at which real problems occur - the formulation of the model. How do we accurately measure which health education campaigns are effective in both medical and financial terms? How do we agree about the medical efficacy of various screening programmes, for example, when the medical establishment itself does not agree? A very rigorous process of evaluation is called for so that we can make an informed decision.
It goes without saying that prevention is better than cure.
That is
why, in recent years, there has been a growing body of opinion in
favour
of putting more resources into
health
education and preventive measures. The argument is that ignorance of,
for example
, basic hygiene or the
dangers
of an unhealthy diet or lifestyle needs to
be combated
by special nationwide publicity campaigns,
as well
as longer-term
health
education.
Obviously
, there is a strong human argument for catching any
medical
condition as early as possible. There is
also
an economic argument for doing
so
. Statistics demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of treating a condition in the early stages,
rather
than delaying until more expensive and prolonged treatment is necessary. Then there are social or economic costs, perhaps in terms of loss of earnings for the family concerned or unemployed benefit paid by the state.
So
far
so
good
,
but
the difficulties
start
when we try to define what the 'proportion' of the budget
"
should be,
particularly
if the funds will be 'diverted from treatment'. Decisions on exactly how much of the total
health
budget should
be spent
in this way
'
are not a matter for the non-specialist,
but
should
be made
on the basis of an
accepted
health
service model.
This is the point at which real problems occur
-
the formulation of the model. How do we
accurately
measure which
health
education campaigns are effective in both
medical
and financial terms? How do we
agree
about the
medical
efficacy of various screening
programmes
,
for example
, when the
medical
establishment itself does not
agree
? A
very
rigorous process of evaluation
is called
for
so
that we can
make
an informed decision.