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

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...