BROKEN HEARTS 131of health professionals at eight diverse sites have been trained to treat
heart disease patients with Dr. Omish's lifestyle intervention program.
Patients eligible to participate are those who have documented heart
disease severe enough to warrant surgery. Instead of surgery, they may
enroll in a one-year lifestyle program. This program was started in 1993,
and by 1998 there were forty insurance programs that covered the costs
for selected patients.^32
As of 1998, almost 200 people had taken part in the Lifestyle Project,
and the results are phenomenal. After one year of treatment, 65% of
patients had eliminated their chest pain. The effect was long lasting, as
well. After three years, over 60% of the patients continued reporting no
chest pain.^32
The health benefits are equaled by the economic benefits. Over one
million heart disease surgeries are undertaken every year. 32 In 2002,
physician services and hospital care for heart disease patients cost $78.1
billion (that does not include drug costs, home health care or nursing
home care).2 The angioplasty procedure alone costs $31,000, and by-
pass surgery costs $46,000. 32 In marked contrast, the year-long lifestyle
intervention program only costs $7,000. By comparing the patients who
underwent the lifestyle program with those patients who underwent
the traditional route of surgery, Dr. Omish and his colleagues demon-
strated that the lifestyle intervention program cut costs by an average of
$30,000 per patient.^32
Much work remains to be done. The health care establishment is
structured to profit from chemical and surgical intervention. Diet still
takes the back seat to drugs and surgery. One criticism that is constantly
leveled at the dietary argument is that patients will not make such funda-
mental changes. One doctor charges that Dr. Esselstyn's patients change
their eating habits simply because of Esselstyn's "zealous belief. "4 7 This
criticism is not only wrong and insulting to patients; it is also self-fulfill-
ing. If doctors do not believe that patients will change their diets, they
will neglect to talk about diet, or will do it in an off-handed, disparaging
way. There is no greater disrespect a doctor can show patients than that
of withholding potentially lifesaving information based on the assump-
tion that patients do not want to change their lifestyle.
Well-meaning institutions are not exempt from such closed-mind-
edness. The American Heart Association recommends a diet for heart
disease that favors moderation, rather than scientific truth. The National
Cholesterol Education Program does the same thing. These organizations