img Leseprobe Leseprobe

Unhealthy Politics

The Battle over Evidence-Based Medicine

Eric M. Patashnik, Conor M. Dowling, Alan S. Gerber, et al.

PDF
ca. 21,99
Amazon iTunes Thalia.de Weltbild.de Hugendubel Bücher.de ebook.de kobo Osiander Google Books Barnes&Noble bol.com Legimi yourbook.shop
* Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Hinweis: Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Links auf reinlesen.de sind sogenannte Affiliate-Links. Wenn du auf so einen Affiliate-Link klickst und über diesen Link einkaufst, bekommt reinlesen.de von dem betreffenden Online-Shop oder Anbieter eine Provision. Für dich verändert sich der Preis nicht.

Princeton University Press img Link Publisher

Sozialwissenschaften, Recht, Wirtschaft / Politikwissenschaft

Beschreibung

How partisanship, polarization, and medical authority stand in the way of evidence-based medicine

The U.S. medical system is touted as the most advanced in the world, yet many common treatments are not based on sound science. Unhealthy Politics sheds new light on why the government's response to this troubling situation has been so inadequate, and why efforts to improve the evidence base of U.S. medicine continue to cause so much political controversy. This critically important book paints a portrait of a medical industry with vast influence over which procedures and treatments get adopted, and a public burdened by the rising costs of health care yet fearful of going against "doctor's orders." Now with a new preface by the authors, Unhealthy Politics offers vital insights into the limits of science, expertise, and professionalism in American politics.

Kundenbewertungen

Schlagwörter

Adobe, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Prostate-specific antigen, Back pain, Indication (medicine), Bureaucrat, Guideline, Prescription drug, Symptom, Skepticism, Comparative effectiveness research, Criticism, Welfare, Sham surgery, Societies, Medical, Specialty (medicine), Health economics, Governance, Health policy, Legislation, Malpractice, Funding, Medical research, Physical therapy, Cardiovascular disease, Doctor–patient relationship, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Case study, Insurance, Airline deregulation, Independent Payment Advisory Board, Medical history, Voting, Medical school, Lobbying, Medical device, Physician, Public policy, Rationing, Health technology, Yale University, Breast cancer, Reimbursement, Pharmaceutical drug, Clinical Study, Advocacy group, Technology, Health care, Inefficiency, Member of Congress, Outcomes research, Political science, Payment, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Good government, Health care in the United States, Surgery, Healthcare industry, Political economy, Death panel, Disease, Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Policy, Prostate cancer, Requirement, Income, Cardiology, Health Affairs, Taxpayer, Trade association, Clinician, Politics, Clinical trial, Medical procedure, Pathology, Medical education, Health system, Information asymmetry, Arthroscopy, Trust Doctor, Orthopedic surgery, Election, Tax, Pharmaceutical industry, Health insurance, Choosing Wisely, Efficacy, Medical error, Debridement, Health care reform, Uncertainty, Medicaid, Brown University, Institution, Complication (medicine), Unwarranted variation, Effectiveness, Respondent, Politician