Leadership

Therapeutic Illusion — A Common Language for Physicians and Executives

Article · January 27, 2017

It’s not uncommon for clinicians and health care executives to see one another as adversaries. It’s understandable when you consider the differences in training, schedules, and languages. But what these groups share is meaningful commitment to better outcomes for patients. Each side faces challenges, and I believe finding a common language would help all of us build a better, more effective health care system.

As clinicians, how do we know which of our treatments work best for patients? The “therapeutic illusion,” as it’s called, is the idea that we believe our interventions are more effective than they actually are in practice. In a classic example, a 1978 study found that for outpatients without definite evidence of illness, the outcomes of treatment versus no treatment were equivalent. In other words, there was no value received from the treatment, despite the best intentions of the physician (and the patient). Perhaps that example is too dramatic, possibly even absurd. But the idea that clinicians overestimate the impact of their treatments is not new. A recent New England Journal of Medicine article contained examples of overconfidence in treatment of back pain and cancer chemotherapy.

In the parlance of evidence-based medicine, this bias is an underestimation of the number-needed-to-treat. The number-needed-to-treat is an estimate of the effectiveness of a therapy —  how many patients must be treated in order to achieve the desired outcome for a single patient. Said differently: for every treatment, some patients benefit, some are harmed, and some are unaffected. For example, the number-needed-to-treat for taking a daily aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke within one year is 1,667. This means that for every 1,667th person who takes the drug, 1,666 either have no benefit or are harmed. Only one person avoids a heart attack or stroke. Here are a few more examples:

herapeutic Illusion - Number Needed to Treat

  Click To Enlarge.

The number-needed-to-treat can be extended to topics in the realm of public policy and delivery system design. Let’s apply the concept to non-clinical leaders: how do we know if our systems strategies improve care for our population? A notable study in the American Journal of Public Health found that adults without insurance had measurably higher mortality rates than those with insurance. The number-needed-to-treat in this study to prevent death by providing adults insurance is 333 — for every 333 adults who receive health insurance, a life is saved. While very meaningful methodological and statistical caveats abound in this example, the logic alone suggests there may be as much value in delivery systems design as there is in the treatments those systems are designed to deliver. This feels like prime opportunity for collaboration.

For policymakers and leaders of health care organizations, these ideas should bring with them a sense of obligation: mistakes made in the boardroom can have the same consequences as mistakes in the exam room. If these number-needed-to-treat data come as a surprise, that suggests we are at risk of underestimating the value of delivery systems design. The therapeutic illusion can apply both ways. We seem to overestimate the effect of medical decisions, yet we may also underestimate the impact of system-wide design choices.

Call for submissions:

Now inviting expert articles, longform articles, and case studies for peer review

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From Leadership
Sands01_pullquote clinical research partnership for learning health care

Real-World Advice for Generating Real-World Evidence

If envisioned and implemented properly, a partnership between clinical delivery systems and clinical research programs can get us closer to the goal of achieving learning within the care continuum and discovering evidence that is available when it is needed.

The Largest Share of Organizations Do Not Have a Formal Strategy for Clinician Engagement

Leadership Survey: Why Clinicians Are Not Engaged, and What Leaders Must Do About It

Clinician engagement is vital for improving clinical quality and patient satisfaction, as well as the job satisfaction of clinicians themselves. Yet nearly half of health care organizations are not very effective or not at all effective at clinician engagement.

Rowe01_pullquote - clinician well-being - fighting clinician burnout and creating culture of wellness takes all stakeholders

Defending the Term “Burnout”: A Useful Tool in the Quest to Ease Clinician Suffering

Health care leaders must take a preemptive approach to clinician well-being that is supported by all stakeholders and prioritized on an equal footing with essential clinical and financial measures.

Screenshot from the NewYork Quality Care Chronic Condition Dashboard

Success in a Hospital-Integrated Accountable Care Organization

How NewYork Quality Care achieved shared savings — by strengthening collaboration, enhancing care management with telehealth, and transparently sharing performance data.

Miller03_pullquote social determinants whole-person

How a State Advances Whole-Person Health Care

Pennsylvania addresses social determinants of health by bringing together managed care and social services organizations to expand access to vital resources.

Abigail Geisinger Scholars Program for Medical Students -Ryu02_pullquote

Why a Teaching Hospital Offers an Employment-Based Tuition Waiver Program

Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine subsidizes medical students’ education in exchange for their willingness to practice at Geisinger Health System.

Michael Dowling and Charles Kenney headshots

Rebooting Health Care: An Optimistic Outlook

The U.S. health care system may seem broken, but it’s on its way to greatness, according to the authors of Health Care Reboot. They discuss their optimism for U.S. health care reform, particularly on the social determinants of health, payment, consumerism, and technology.

Action Steps for Risk-Share Contracts for Medical Devices

Challenges and Best Practices for Health Systems to Consider When Implementing Risk-Share Contracts for Medical Devices

When done right, value-based contracting for medical devices can ameliorate shrinking margins at health systems, leading to a virtuous circle.

Health Care Organizational Culture Emphasizes Patient Care Only Slightly More Than the Bottom Line

Survey Snapshot: Who Should Lead Culture Change?

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members feel that culture change at their organizations is heading in the right direction, but differ on who it should come from, and reveal too much balance between emphasis on bottom line and emphasis on patient care.

Culture Change Within Health Care Organizations Is Changing for the Better

Leadership Survey: Organizational Culture Is the Key to Better Health Care

Although three-quarters of Insights Council survey respondents say culture change is a high or moderate priority at their organizations, survey results show a lot of work on organizational culture remains to be done.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

Leading Transformation

280 Articles

Ripe for Disruption: Why and How…

For big tech companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google, the health care sector looks ripe…

Physician Burnout

52 Articles

Survey Snapshot: How Do You Know…

The NEJM Catalyst Insights Council discusses strategies for clinical engagement.

The Next Frontier in Reducing Costs…

To create meaningful point-of-care guidance so that patients can make informed medical and financial decisions,…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now