Eggert and Parkinson (1994, pp. 688 693) argue the case for a prominent role for preventive medicine in any post reform health care system in the United States. The argument is logically attractive and relevant to the contemporary health care reform debate, for there can be no better way can to improve the overall state of health in the United States while simultaneously reducing the massive expenditures on health care in this country than the prevention of disease, injury, and to the extent possible conditions associated with genetic factors and human aging.
Valid objectives such as quality control in health care, the provision of universal access, and the promotion of generalism over specialization in American medicine have tended to place a lower priority on consideration of an objective to increase the emphasis on preventive medicine (Schroeder, Zones, and Showstack, 1989, pp. 803 812). The objectives that are being emphasized, however, together with the goal to reduce the costs of health care in the United States, either will not be attained or such attainment will be limited in the absence of a sound preventive maintenance element in the delivery of health care. The objectives of preventive medicine are to protect, promote, and maintain health, and to prevent disease, disability, and premature death (Hersey, Boudreau, and Zeid, 1992, p. 6).
Eggert and Parkinson (1994, pp. 688 693) point out that the Healthy People 2000 report issued by the federal Department of Health and Human Services delineated specific and measurable health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Further, according to Eggert and Parkinson (1994, pp. 688 693) both the American public and the federal government are demanding scientifically sound preventive medicine. Nevertheless, physicians in the United States are not encouraged, motivated, or compensated to train as preventive medicine specialists (Leaf, 1993, pp. 616 618).
Eggert and Par...