Skip to main content

Blood pressure study points to more equitable care in England than America

In the USA but not in England, patients on low incomes with high blood pressure have their condition managed poorly compared with those who earn more.

A new study from my department comparing blood pressure management in the US and England found that although there is little difference between the two countries overall, the level of socioeconomic inequality is much higher in the US, with wealthier Americans more likely to meet targets for bringing their blood pressure under control than poorer patients. The study was published in the journal PLOS ONE.

High blood pressure, or hypertension, is the leading cause of ill health worldwide and affects 76 million people in the US and 16 million in the UK. It is diagnosed if someone’s blood pressure consistently measures 140/90 millimetres of mercury or higher. Doctors usually recommend lifestyle changes to control blood pressure, and may prescribe antihypertensive drugs.

The research aimed to determine whether differences between the British and American health systems influence the quality of hypertension management and disparities between socioeconomic groups, using data from national surveys.

People aged 65 and over, who have universal coverage through Medicare in the US, were considered separately from those aged 50-64, who have varying coverage under a market-based system. In England, the National Health Service offers universal health coverage with free care at the point of delivery for all ages.

In over-65s, American patients with hypertension were modestly more likely to meet clinical targets for blood pressure control than those in England. In patients aged 50-64, there was no significant difference between the countries.

However, in both age groups in the US, wealthier patients were more likely to meet targets for bringing their blood pressure under control than poorer patients. There was no disparity based on wealth or income in English patients.

Lead author Dr Andrew Dalton, now at Oxford University, said: “These findings show that for patients with high blood pressure, the English universal healthcare model provides a similar quality of care to the US market-based system, but does so much more equitably across the population.”

Dr Christopher Millett, the senior author of the study, from the School of Public Health at Imperial College London, said: “Our finding of equitable care for hypertension in England is probably due to the strong primary care system and the negligible cost of care to patients in the NHS, features lacking in the US system. The findings suggest that the US competitive market approach being introduced into the NHS may not produce the improvements in quality the government is hoping for and could reduce equity in care between poor and rich groups.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Protecting Against the "Quad-demic": Influenza, Covid-19, Norovirus and RSV

As the NHS braces for a challenging winter season, it is grappling with a "quad-demic" of health emergencies caused by influenza, Covid-19, norovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This confluence of viral threats poses a significant risk to public health in the UK as well as putting strain on healthcare resources, emphasising the importance of preventive measures to safeguard public health. Public health measures such a vaccination and good personal hygiene are pivotal in reducing the impact of these illnesses, particularly for vulnerable groups. The Four Viruses: What Are They? Influenza: A highly contagious respiratory infection that causes significant illness each winter. It can lead to severe complications, particularly in the elderly, young children, pregnant women, and those with chronic health conditions. Covid-19: Though its most acute phase has passed, Covid-19 remains a concern, especially as new variants of SA...

The Hidden Cost of Cheaper NHS Contracts: Losing Community Trust

NHS budgets are under considerable pressure. It is therefore unsurprising that many NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) In England will aim to prioritise price in contract awards, But this approach is a significant threat to community-centred healthcare. While competitive tendering is a legally required, an excessive focus on costs in awarding NHS contracts risks overshadowing key factors such as established community trust, local expertise, and the long-term impact on continuity of care. This shift towards cheaper, often external, commercial providers threatens to cut the links between communities and their local health services. The argument that competitive tendering is solely about legal compliance, and not cost, is undermined by the very nature of such tendering, which by design encourages the lowest bid. This approach risks eroding the social fabric of local healthcare provision, where established relationships and understanding of specific community needs are essential. Establishe...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...