Cited by 1,065Public Health Policies and EducationHealthcare Policy and ManagementHealth disparities and outcomes

We can do better―improving the health of the American people

Open access
Schroeder, Steven A.·2007·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

T he united states spends more on health care than any other nation in the world, yet it ranks poorly on nearly every measure of health status.How can this be?What explains this apparent paradox?The two-part answer is deceptively simple -first, the pathways to better health do not generally depend on better health care, and second, even in those instances in which health care is important, too many Americans do not receive it, receive it too late, or receive poor-quality care.In this lecture, I first summarize where the United States stands in international rankings of health status.Next, using the concept of determinants of premature death as a key measure of health status, I discuss pathways to improvement, emphasizing lessons learned from tobacco control and acknowledging the reality that better health (lower mortality and a higher level of functioning) cannot be achieved without paying greater attention to poor Americans.I conclude with speculations on why we have not focused on improving health in the United States and what it would take to make that happen. He a lth S tat us of the A mer ic a n Publ icAmong the 30 developed nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States ranks near the bottom on most standard measures of health status (Table 1).1-4 (One measure on which the United States does better is life expectancy from the age of 65 years, possibly reflecting the comprehensive health insurance provided for this segment of the population.)Among the 192 nations for which 2004 data are available, the United States ranks 46th in average life expectancy from birth and 42nd in infant mortality.5,6 It is remarkable how complacent the public and the medical profession are in their acceptance of these unfavorable comparisons, especially in light of how carefully we track health-systems measures, such as the size of the budget for the National Institutes of Health, trends in national spending on health, and the number of Americans who lack health insurance.One reason for the complacency may be the rationalization that the United States is more ethnically heterogeneous than the nations at the top of the rankings, such as Japan, Switzerland, and Iceland.It is true that within the United States there are large disparities in health status -by geographic area, race and ethnic group, and class.[7][8][9] But even when comparisons are limited to white Americans, our performance is dismal (Table 1).And even if the health status of white Americans matched that in the leading nations, it would still be incumbent on us to improve the health of the entire nation. Path wa ys t o Improv ing P opul at ion He a lthHealth is influenced by factors in five domains -genetics, social circumstances, environmental exposures, behavioral patterns, and health care (Fig. 1).10,11 When it

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa073350

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. attention to health promotion. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21(2):78-93.
  2. Erra- tum, Am J Public Health 2003;93:703.]
  3. The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on August 29, 2023. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
  4. Gawande A. Annals of medicine: the way we age now. The New Yorker. April 30, 2007:50-9.
  5. Woolf SH. Potential health and eco- nomic consequences of misplaced priori- ties. JAMA 2007;297:523-6. Healthy People 2010: understanding and improving health. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Ser- vices, 2001.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schroeder, S. A.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Schroeder, Steven A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2007-09-20
Volume
357
Issue
12
Pages
1221-1228
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2154051039
Cited by
1,065
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 131 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 45
FWCI
87.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
health care spending, tobacco control, health disparities, health improvement, quality of care, health insurance, life expectancy, infant mortality, racial and ethnic disparities, socioeconomic disparities, health policy priorities, health care reform
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Delivery of Health Care, Health, Health Promotion, Health Status, Humans, Mortality, Obesity, Quality of Health Care, Smoking, United States, Health Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review