Secondary prevention fallacy: pitfalls in comparing with primary.

ABSTRACT

A basic tenet of our culture is the idea that preventing ills is better than curing them. This principle is entrenched in many proverbs and popular admonitions 'A stitch in time saves nine', 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. These well-worn sayings crisply convey our sense that it is preferable to intervene before a bad event occurs than to wait and try to mitigate it afterwards. Yet, economic analyses have demonstrated that in healthcare this does not hold 'primary prevention' does not provide as good value-for-money as 'secondary prevention'. Is this reversal of folk wisdom correct? Or, instead, is it a result of faults in the application of the relatively new methodology of cost-effectiveness analyses?