The US ranks DEAD LAST

[DaemonSeid]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - France is tops, and the United States dead last, in providing timely and effective healthcare to its citizens, according to a survey Tuesday of preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries.

The study by the Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs measured developed countries' effectiveness at providing timely and effective healthcare.
The study, entitled "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," was written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It looked at death rates in subjects younger than 75 that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.
The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.
The non-profit Commonwealth Fund, which financed the study, expressed alarm at the findings.
"It is startling to see the US falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, who noted that "other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less."
The 19 countries, in order of best to worst, were: France, Japan, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Some countries showed dramatic improvement in the periods studied -- 1997 and 1998 and again between 2002 and 2003 -- outpacing the United States, which showed only slight improvement.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108...y_080108191353

Why am I not surprised?

[AlethiaSi]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Why am I not surprised?

My thoughts exactly.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Why am I not surprised?

You shouldn't be surprised . . . but not at the thing you're thinking of.

Instead, you shouldn't be surprised to learn that the research was sponsored by The Commonwealth Fund, which acts as a PAC pushing for (among other things) universal, government-sponsored health care coverage.

This isn't solid or reputable research, from what I can see.

[PiKA2001]

You hear this all the time, but personally i've never had a problem getting medical attention when it was needed, whether it be getting in at the doctors office or at the emergency room. Maybe I've always been lucky to live in good areas when it comes to health care access. Does this report claim any regional differences in health care, i.e. easier to get treatment in Boston then Chicago?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You shouldn't be surprised . . . but not at the thing you're thinking of.

Instead, you shouldn't be surprised to learn that the research was sponsored by The Commonwealth Fund, which acts as a PAC pushing for (among other things) universal, government-sponsored health care coverage.

This isn't solid or reputable research, from what I can see.

Duh, didn't catch that. All of those countries besides the US have government provided health care right? Then of course the US would be last since Medicaid is what the study is based on? I'm not a fan of the idea of universal health care at all, I enjoy my current health care provider too much. Besides, with the mess that social security is, who in their right mind wants to trust them with their health care?

[KDAngel]

This is bollocks. There are places, in the Europe (re: the UK) for example, that are far worse... whatever.

[PhiGam]

Yeah, capitalism sucks.
I can go to any doctor I want and be seen within 24 hours and if I call 911 they are here in five minutes.

[UGAalum94]

I suspect that we have big gaps in people not seeking care or not changing behaviors that they know put them at risk rather than seeking care and not getting it.

I'd love to see statistics on the number of people with great health care plans and low co-pays who still don't take good care of themselves. Um, obesity epidemic anyone?

[RACooper]

Hmmm... I see Canada has slipped down in the ranks - guess it's Alberta's American-style health care system bringing us down in on the standings again (which worries me since I'm moving there).

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.

Is this the same as Joe The Ditch Digger, making $5 an hour, doubling his income by getting a job paying $10 an hour, while Bill Gates' income went up by just a little bit? Poor Bill.

Some people might call this so-called study a "crucial indicator". I call it junk science. There's a LOT of junk science around these days. Just watch the nightly news any day of the week.

[EE-BO]

These results could actually be quite accurate. Where I have a concern is the fact that the statistic being presented is a % change of a period of time.

This is a dangerous type of number because the time frame chosen can have an incredible impact on the results.

For example, very often when long term stock performance is compared to other investments- the starting date will be right after the 1929 Crash when the stock market was at an incredibly low point. While long term stock performance is superior to other traditional forms of investment, starting after the big crash versus 2 weeks before the big crash has a huge impact on how the numbers look.

In this instance, the results are all the more suspicious since only 2 short periods of time were studied and were not contiguous. With the decades of health care data available, why were only a pair of 2 year period presented?

It is also worth noting that the UK is second worst and yet the NHS system was really the first major national health service and is the poster child for national health care (as abysmal as it is now, for a long time it was a shining success.) So it is hard to blame a lack of national health care on this issue.

The United States has the best health care in the world and always has. Doctors flood into this country from around the world to study at top schools and practice in top hospitals. In fact, and I know this from some personal experience, if you want to really see a truly culturally diverse collection of top professionals from around the world- just check out the surgery staff at any top US hospital.

Because the US has such good health care, it is only natural they would be at a disadvantage when there is a comparison between the RATE of change in quality of care- because the rate of change says nothing about how good the care was at the start of the period being tested.

In other words, if the US went from 95% to 98% and country X went from 80% to 90%- then country X will have a much better rate of change, but you would still rather be sick over here in the good old US of A.

To put it another way, the results of this study may well be very accurate and correct- but they do not answer the question they purport to address.

Personally, I don't know why these kinds of misleading studies are necessary. National health coverage is quite within reach here provided we go about it sensibly, but given the emotional issues surrounding it and the desire of government to have ownership- it is unlikely our political leaders will take the rational path anytime soon.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Hmmm... I see Canada has slipped down in the ranks - guess it's Alberta's American-style health care system bringing us down in on the standings again (which worries me since I'm moving there).

Well let's hope you don't get kicked by a moose.

[PeppyGPhiB]

The intended purpose of this study (or the announcement anyway) is just to point out that people with health insurance receive more/better preventative or diagnostic care than people without health coverage. To that, I say "DUH!"