Q. Why do we need to change our approach to health care?
A. Currently, our health care system is based on a reactive approach to illness. We wait until people are sick before we treat them and focus on symptoms and disease treatment rather than proactively addressing their overall health and wellbeing. That’s what we call a ‘sick-care’ mindset — and it is causing unnecessary strain on our health care system because we’re often dealing with illnesses that have advanced to a critical state, rather than managing them in the early stages, or even preventing them.
We need to shift our mindset from ‘sick-care’ to ‘well-care’, by thinking outside the box that is the typical clinical care setting. We must reassess traditional models of care — where physicians have ten-minute slots to gain a snapshot of a person’s health and illness — and expand our view to include non-clinical health determinants so we can better assess what people, and populations, need to stay healthy in the first place.
In order to achieve this ‘World of Well’, we have to revolutionize our health care model, by implementing a population medicine approach.
Q. What does population medicine mean?
A. The term ‘population medicine’ describes a multi-sectoral approach to health care, where broader determinants of health, such as education, socioeconomic factors and physical environment, are taken into account when addressing broad health outcomes and disparities.
In short, population medicine goes beyond the treatment of the disease, to encompass the wider factors that impact our health.
Q. Is the term ‘medicine’ misleading if the point of population medicine is to look beyond symptoms and treatment?
A. Yes and no. In a sense, the use of ‘medicine’ is accurate as population medicine is about encompassing a wider view of health to address, or ‘treat’, the health care issues we are facing. However, we need to re-evaluate our terminology in health care. Words like ‘patients’ and ‘medicine’ are outdated: they narrow our lens to one of sick-care and the clinical setting.
If we are to shift our mindset to one of ‘well-care’ and ‘health care’, we must stop treating people as ‘patients’. Pharmaceutical and health care industries often talk about ‘patient-centricity’, but it needs to be about ‘people-centricity’ under the new model of population medicine. This change in terminology is the first step we can take to update the way we think about health care.
Q. In order for nations and health care systems to make the shift to population medicine, which factors, beyond clinical, should be considered?
A. Every factor in a person’s life is interlinked. Think of it as a chain reaction that ultimately shapes a person’s health and lifestyle. Health is multi-factorial, and this is the basis of the population medicine approach: it highlights the need to view people’s lives as a whole — from medical history and current illnesses, to socio-economic background, geography and physical environment — in order to provide effective well-care.
To make the shift to population medicine, governments and health care systems must view health through this wider lens. Real change will only happen when our social, environmental and health policies are viewed together and not considered in silos.
Q. What role do governments need to play in creating this change?
A. Collaboration is vital to ensure communication and action. Governments must work with health care organizations to blend health policy with housing, social care, and environmental policies. It is a long-term investment for both parties — but the outcomes will be worth it.
This is an approach that was recently highlighted by various organizations as the way forward post-pandemic. Both the ‘One Health’ policy by the World Health Organization and the report from the Pan-European Commission on Health and Sustainable Development clearly set out the need for health care to be more intimately integrated into the wider policy framework, and for close collaboration across sectors, stakeholders and countries.
Q. What does this shift to population medicine mean for the pharmaceutical industry?
A. Ultimately, I see the pharmaceutical industry evolving from its traditional role as a ‘treatment business’ to a government partner, with a wider scope and increased responsibility in the areas of preventative health and public health education. Eventually, the industry could also use their fiscal base and resources to support studies in population health, to measure and define the link between public health outcomes and education, socioeconomic factors, and physical environment.
In fact, I believe that the pharmaceutical industry has a duty — to the people and populations we aim to serve — to take a take a stand in these areas. Moving forwards, we have a responsibility to incorporate this multi-factoral approach into everything we do, whether it is disease research, health care training or the partnerships we create.
CP-281869 December 2021