"In any situation, a person decides what to do based on an understanding of facts, issues, options for action, and consequences." So says PlainLanguage.gov. Oh, would that it were so! This premise that individuals needing medical care are rational consumers is, in itself, irrational.
Participating in healthcare is not like buying a car.
When it comes to healthcare decisions, understanding the medical facts and treatment options and consequences often requires an advanced degree, specialized vocabulary, internet access and research skills. The "facts" — like the definition of health literacy — are likely to differ by who you ask. Well-established medical facts change along with rapidly developing knowledge and technology. The price of treatments, and whether and how much insurance will cover, is usually unknown by both service provider and consumer until after the fact. The medical, personal and social consequences of a disease or treatment option are in most cases predictable only by what seems to have happened to other people in other families and circumstances. So if it were true that we humans base our health and medical decisions and actions on objective rational logic, few such decisions could be made.
In healthcare, where issues and consequences are intensely personal, often embarrassing, frightening, financially devastating, and far reaching, decision-making and behaviors are more often based on a mix of emotions, insurance status, immigration status, cultural or religious beliefs, trust or mistrust of providers or government, practical considerations like availability of transportation…the list could go on and on.
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do. ~Goethe
This flawed view of individuals as rational consumers of health services separate from the context of their everyday lives supports another convenient but equally flawed notion: If people just had more or better information, they would make appropriate decisions and adopt health promoting behaviors. PlainLanguage.gov presents this as the theoretical foundation for the Ask Me Three[questions] campaign. That may be a good conversation starter.
Still, seeing patients as rational consumers who ought to lead discussions about their care places the "health literacy problem" (high costs, disparate outcomes, inefficiencies and inequities) squarely on the patient. If we are to achieve the national vision of a health literate society, rather than expecting individuals in need of healthcare services to learn medical terminology and disease information, healthcare professionals must learn to communicate effectively with people who have not gone to medical school. Rather than insisting that patients re-arrange their lives, become researchers and care managers, and endure all manner of inconvenience to comply with overly complex treatment regimens, healthcare delivery professionals must adapt treatments to the realities of everyday life.
Howard K. Koh, Donald M. Berwick, Carolyn M. Clancy, Cynthia Baur, Cindy Brach, Linda M. Harris and Eileen G. Zerhusen. New Federal Policy Initiatives To Boost Health Literacy Can Help The Nation Move Beyond The Cycle Of Costly 'Crisis Care' Health Affairs 31, no.2 (2012):434-443(published online January 18, 2012; 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1169)