On Nov. 3, the Washington Times published the editorial, “The myth of preventive care,” which suggests prevention is being over promised in the political rhetoric surrounding health reform.

Once again we’re throwing the baby out with the bath water—saying that prevention never saves money is simply inaccurate.

I’m not saying prevention is a cure-all—it is most effective paired with payment and delivery system reforms. It is a necessary and integral part of comprehensive reform to our health care system that, if done right, promises to deliver better value per dollar spent.

Three-quarters of health care spending is linked to patients with preventable chronic conditions. It is logical—and necessary—that we aim to address this epidemic in health reform legislation to improve the health of our country and save money.

The misrepresentation of prevention stems from a misunderstanding of what prevention really is. The editorial focuses on screenings – the form of prevention that is most likely to cost money in the short-term – but it overlooks programs that save money by preventing the onset of these diseases in the first place, or managing them effectively to avoid costly complications.

“Prevention” includes many different types of interventions along the spectrum of health care, many of which are targeted to those most at-risk for developing chronic conditions. No one is suggesting that every American be screened for diabetes, but if we can target screenings towards those who are most at-risk, we have an opportunity to improve their quality of life and reduce associated costs.

I wrote a blog post on the CBO report  referenced in the editorial, which further explains the restrictions and limitations of CBO scoring of prevention. It is just not possible to capture all the savings generated from prevention efforts in only 10 years. I have also previously called attention to numerous programs with data that show success in improving health outcomes and reducing health costs (see here, here, and here).

For old time’s sake, here is another example:

The Diabetes 10 City Challenge targets diabetic employees, dependents and retirees of the city government, who then receive a voluntary health benefit, waiver for diabetes medications and supplies co-pays and a specially-trained pharmacist "coach". As a result of the intervention, each individual sees an average annual savings of over $1,000 in total health care costs.