Tena Holistic

Built for Cure, Not Prevention: Why Modern (Reactive) Medicine Struggles With Chronic Diseases

Modern medicine is superb at rescuing people from acute crises, but it was never designed to prevent the chronic diseases that now consume about 90% of U.S. health spending. That gap is not a failure of individual doctors. It is the inheritance of a system built, over a century ago, around the laboratory, the prescription and the operating room.

How it started: the 1910 Flexner Report

In 1910, educator Abraham Flexner published Medical Education in the United States and Canada for the Carnegie Foundation. He surveyed about 150 medical schools and found many of them poorly equipped, unregulated and commercial.

His remedy was the Johns Hopkins model: university-based schools, rigorous training in the laboratory sciences, and clinical teaching in hospitals. The reform worked on its own terms. Standards rose sharply, and by the mid-1930s fewer than 70 schools remained (JSTOR Daily).

The reform also had costs. Schools teaching homeopathic, eclectic and other traditions largely disappeared. Of seven medical schools that served Black students, only two survived, Howard and Meharry, which curtailed Black medical education for generations (STAT).

Most important for chronic disease, medicine was rebuilt around a biomedical, single-target model: find the lesion or pathogen, then treat it with a drug, surgery or a lab-guided procedure. Nutrition, movement, sleep, stress and environment moved to the margins, where they stayed for most of the century that followed.

What was left out: prevention and nutrition

Before 1910, a visible strand of health care focused on "hygienic" living. Institutions such as Dr. John Harvey Kellogg's Battle Creek Sanitarium prescribed diet, exercise, hydrotherapy, rest, fresh air and sunlight. Some of these ideas were sound; others, by today's standards, were not.

The new scientific standard had little room for them. Lifestyle therapies are hard to isolate into a single active ingredient, hard to patent and slow to show results, so they were easily dismissed as "soft." Sanatoria faded over the following decades, driven as much by the Great Depression and the arrival of effective drugs such as antibiotics as by Flexner himself. Health care was increasingly built around acute-care university hospitals with pathology labs and surgical suites.

Nutrition dropped out of the curriculum

Flexner's curriculum centred on anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology and bacteriology. Nutrition was not treated as a core science, so it was left with little dedicated teaching time. Students learned to diagnose a disease and match it to a treatment, not to change the daily habits that cause it.

The gap persists. A national survey of 121 U.S. medical schools found an average of 19 hours of nutrition teaching across the whole degree.

Seventy-one percent missed the recommended minimum of 25 hours, 36% gave 12 hours or fewer, and 9% gave none (Adams et al., 2015).

The default mindset that followed: treat dysfunction with medicine after it appears, rather than change lifestyle to prevent it.

The "pill for an illness" paradigm

After 1910, large philanthropies, notably the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller's General Education Board, poured money into medical schools that met the new research-intensive standard. Their founders' fortunes came from steel and oil, not drugs, but the effect was clear: money flowed to laboratory science and to schools built around it.

As the century went on, the wider economics of health care reinforced the same direction.

Treatment is rewarded.

Patentable drugs, devices and procedures can recover research costs and generate profit, so research and marketing concentrate there.

Prevention is under-rewarded.

Helping a patient change diet, movement, sleep or stress produces no product to sell. Under fee-for-service payment it is also poorly reimbursed compared with a procedure or a prescription.

None of this requires bad intentions. It is simply a system whose incentives point toward the pharmacy and the operating room, and away from the kitchen, the walking path and the bedroom.

Chronic disease recast as genetics or aging

Twentieth-century medicine won historic victories over infection. Vaccines, antibiotics and sanitation transformed outcomes for smallpox, tuberculosis and pneumonia. The "find the cause, give the cure" model earned its prestige.

The trouble came when the same model was applied to heart disease, type 2 diabetes and hypertension. These conditions have no single pathogen. They grow over decades from diet, inactivity, poor sleep, chronic stress, to***co, alcohol and environment, interacting with genes.

Without training in lifestyle medicine, clinicians often saw these conditions as the unavoidable price of ageing or bad genes. The standard response became lifelong medication to control numbers, rather than changing the conditions that produce them. Symptoms are signals; for decades the system mostly turned the signals down.

The evidence today is a structure that cannot deliver prevention.

Four lines of research show that the Flexner-era design still shapes care. The problem is structural: time, training, money and reach.

Research Key findings:

Time in primary care

A physician with 2,500 adult patients would need 26.7 hours a day to follow all guidelines, including 14.1 hours for preventive care alone. Team-based care cuts this to 9.3 hours.
(Porter et al., 2022)

Time:
Earlier estimate
Recommended preventive services alone would take 7.4 hours per working day.
(Yarnall et al., 2003).

Training:
Medical students worldwide report feeling unprepared to counsel on diet and physical activity; curricula lack practical behaviour-change skills. (Sousa et al., 2024).

In the U. S. Training averages 19 hours of nutrition teaching; 71% of schools below the 25-hour minimum.
(Adams et al., 2015)

Spending:
About 90% of the $4.5 trillion U.S. health spending in 2022 went to people with chronic and mental health conditions. (CDC, via NIHCM; Benavidez et al., 2024)

What drives health
Medical care accounts for roughly 10–20% of population health outcomes; behaviour, social and environmental factors account for the rest. (McGinnis et al., 2002; County Health Rankings model)

In short, we ask clinicians to deliver prevention without the hours, the training or the payment to do it. Meanwhile, most of what determines health happens outside the clinic, in homes, workplaces, food environments and communities.

Public health and primary prevention receive only a few percent of national health spending. Total U.S. spending reached $5.3 trillion in 2024 (CMS), and most of it pays for disease after it has developed.

The Return of Lifestyle Medicine

It took most of a century for the pendulum to swing back. Rising obesity, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease exposed the limits of managing lifestyle-driven illness with medication alone.

In 2004 the American College of Lifestyle Medicine was founded to restore six areas as first-line, evidence-based therapy: whole-food nutrition, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, social connection and avoiding risky substances.

Crucially, lifestyle medicine now meets the scientific standard Flexner demanded. Landmark trials show what is possible:
1. Diabetes Prevention Program (2002): an intensive lifestyle programm cut progression to type 2 diabetes by 58% in high-risk adults, outperforming metformin (31%).
DiRECT (2018):
2. A structured weight-management programme put 46% of participants with type 2 diabetes into remission at one year.

3. Lifestyle Heart Trial (1990): comprehensive diet, exercise and stress change led to measurable regression of coronary artery narrowing. These results do not replace medicines, which remain essential for many patients. They show that lifestyle is a treatment in its own right, not a footnote.

What this means for patients and clinicians

The lesson is not to reject modern medicine. Its diagnostics, surgery and drugs save lives every day. The lesson is that a system designed for acute rescue needs a second foundation for chronic disease: daily habits, sustained over years.

For patients:
Treat symptoms as signals. Rising blood pressure, blood sugar or waistline is information about how you live, not only a number to medicate.
1. Build the pillars: food, movement, sleep, stress, relationships and environment. Build the pillars, and health often follows (Dr Markos' Philosophy)
2. Keep taking prescribed medicines while you change habits, and review doses with your clinician as your numbers improve.
3. Consistency beats intensity. Small daily steps outlast dramatic short-term efforts.

For clinicians and health systems:
1. Use team-based care. Health coaches, dietitians, nurses and community health workers can deliver the counseling one physician cannot fit into a day.
2. Invest in training. Nutrition and behaviour-change skills belong in medical education and continuing education.
3. Measure and pay for prevention, not only for procedures.
4. Partner with communities, where most of the determinants of health actually sit.
5. Food first, supplements when needed, and medicine when it is truly the best tool.

Prevention is not "soft" science. It is the part of medicine we are only now learning to build properly.

References
Adams, K. M., Butsch, W. S., & Kohlmeier, M. (2015). The state of nutrition education at US medical schools. Journal of Biomedical Education, 2015, 357627. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/357627

Benavidez, G. A., Zahnd, W. E., Hung, P., & Eberth, J. M. (2024). Chronic disease prevalence in the US: Sociodemographic and geographic variations by zip code tabulation area. Preventing Chronic Disease, 21, E14. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd21.230267

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2025). National Health Expenditure fact sheet. CMS

Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(6), 393–403.

Flexner, A. (1910). Medical Education in the United States and Canada. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin No. 4.

Lean, M. E. J., et al. (2018). Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT). The Lancet, 391(10120), 541–551.

McGinnis, J. M., Williams-Russo, P., & Knickman, J. R. (2002). The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Affairs, 21(2), 78–93.

National Institute for Health Care Management. (2025). The growing burden of chronic diseases. NIHCM

Ornish, D., et al. (1990). Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. The Lancet, 336(8708), 129–133.

Porter, J., Boyd, C., Skandari, M. R., & Laiteerapong, N. (2023). Revisiting the time needed to provide adult primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 38(1), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-022-07707-x

Sousa, J. R., Afreixo, V., Carvalho, J., & Silva, P. (2024). Nutrition and physical activity education in medical school: A narrative review. Nutrients, 16(16), 2809. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16162809

Yarnall, K. S. H., Pollak, K. I., Østbye, T., Krause, K. M., & Michener, J. L. (2003). Primary care: Is there enough time for prevention? American Journal of Public Health, 93(4), 635–641.

Further reading: JSTOR Daily on the Flexner Report; STAT on Flexner and Black medical education; UChicago Medicine summary of Porter et al.

By Dr Markos Markoson
Holistic (0982224444).