Skip to main content.

Complete Health Reporting: More Treatment Isn’t Always Better

Complete Health Reporting: More Treatment Isn’t Always Better

Picture of William Heisel

Your grandmother calls you on the phone and says that she went to the doctor that morning and they found a tumor in her nasal cavity. She says they don’t know if it’s cancerous, but they want to remove it as a precaution.

You say, “You should do what the doctor tells you and have the surgery.” And with good reason. You’re not a doctor, and you assume that the doctor knows best.

Chris Knap, the investigations editor at the Orange County Register, questioned that assumption in great detail for a story that allowed me the wonderful opportunity to team up with him. Never had I seen a reporter so cool and calm during a tough interview. Knap went right to one of the busiest surgeons in the county and asked him point blank and repeatedly why he was so inclined to operate and how he explained the fact that when he did operate, he sometimes left his patients worse off than they were before.

Just asking those types of questions is a leap for many reporters because another baseline assumption many of us all have is that more care is better. More screening is better. All problems can be solved through prescriptions and surgeries.

But a story should never focus on a surgical approach or a drug treatment while never mentioning the other options, as I wrote on Friday.

Here’s why. In health care, sometimes less is more. And when you present to readers that newer is always better or more is always the right answer, you are not only contributing to the huge health care bill we all pay as taxpayers and insurance rate payers in the U.S. You also are contributing to a lot of unintended consequences: Addictions to pills; injuries during surgeries, healthcare-associated infections.

One large study, first previewed at an American Urological Association (AUA) conference in 2011, found that for many men with early-stage prostate cancer, surgery showed no benefit. The best course of action in this case was actually no action at all, just “watchful waiting” by both the patient and his doctor. Pieter Droppert, editor of the Biotech Strategy Blog, wrote:

The conclusion from this data is that low risk, early stage prostate cancer patients should be observed by “watchful waiting” rather than undergo radical prostatectomy (RP).  This may have a financial impact on urologists who previously may have favored RP in low risk patients.

It’s that financial impact that you have to think about when you are asking your physician for a recommendation or when you are talking with a physician as an expert in a particular line of treatment.

In the case of a grandmother with a tumor, the risk of damaging a nerve and causing paralysis in an older patient could be higher than the risk that she would die from the tumor. This is what Knap found when reviewing patients’ medical records with experts in the field. They told him that, given the same circumstances, they would have opted to avoid an operation because the chances were good that the patient would have lived unharmed by the tumor and died from an unrelated cause.

If treatment is the answer, there’s also a question about the extent of the treatment. I’ll write about that in my next post.

Image by Tips Times via Flickr


Picture of <span class="username">Guest (not verified)</span>

I completely agree with this, William - but did you see this from PLOS One? "The Ultimate Decision is Yours: Exploring Patients' Attitudes About the Overuse of Medical Interventions" - -

"Participants placed enormous value on testing and screening, reacting with hostility to guidelines recommending less of either. However, they were suspicious of overmedication."

Leave A Comment


Soaring out-of-pocket costs, rising premiums, and shaky insurance exchanges raise urgent questions this election season. What policies might address these problems, and how do the presidential candidates’ health plans differ? This webinar will give an overview of each candidates’ policy prescriptions and provide reporters with crucial context for covering one of the election’s most important but overlooked issues.

The 2017 California Fellowship, for California-based journalists only, will be held March 5-9, 2017 in Los Angeles. This Fellowship will focus on vulnerable populations and access to care and health care reform and innovation. We also take an in-depth look at how community conditions influence individuals' prospects for health. Each Fellow receives a $1,000 stipend to assist with the costs of reporting an ambitious Fellowship project on a California health issue, as well as six months of mentoring by a Senior Fellow. Deadline to apply is Dec. 1.  For more information, go here.


Member Activities

Bill Gordon's profile has been updated

Connect with Bill Gordon

Elizabeth Marigliano has shared a blog post

Read it.

Steven Weissman has shared a blog post

Read it.

Anna Romano has shared a blog post

Read it.

Earl Reser's profile has been updated

Connect with Earl Reser
More Member Activities

Follow Us



CHJ Icon