Soccer Dad

Sick health care?

John Stossel debunks Another Bogus Report Card for U.S. Medical Care

In May, the Commonwealth Fund issued its latest comparison of the U.S. medical system with five other wealthy nations' systems: Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and Great Britain.

Predictably, the study begins: "Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms."

I was immediately suspicious, considering the loaded study by the World Health Organization seven years ago. (I wrote about it last week.)

My suspicion was justified. It turns out the new study is almost as biased as the WHO's. The authors write, "The U.S. is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes."

I see. America "underperforms" because we don't have enough government intervention.

However more government intervention is not what American health care needs because the quality is actually pretty good, as Stossel writes:

The Commonwealth Fund study divides "quality" into right (effective) care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centered care. The U.S. placed fifth or sixth in the last three.

But where did the U.S. place in "right care"?

First.

"Right care" is the most important criterion because it includes things like how often women have mammograms and whether diabetics get proper treatment.

The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last in "equity": "Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment or follow-up care ... because of costs."

Dr Helen notes that American health care is good if someone has cancer.

All the media does is tout universal healthcare like that in the UK as something for the US to aspire to--but given the lower rates of cancer survival there, maybe that is not such wise advice. Take a look at this study on the poor cancer survival rates in the UK and the high ones in the US Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced....

England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.

Similarly Yuval Levin writes in Contentions

Meanwhile, in the real world of cancer research, serious progress is being made, in no small part because of the work of those evil pharmaceutical companies. Cancer death rates have declined by about 1.5 percent per year for the last fifteen years, and cancer is slowly becoming more like a chronic disease than a swift killer. Much work remains, but, as yesterday’s forum made clear, it’s not the work of politicians.

And what about the high level of uninsured that the NY Times is so concerned about?

Stossel writes

As I've noted previously, the problem of the 45 million uninsured is exaggerated. The statistics represent a snapshot, and many uninsured people are reinsured in less than a year. The same people are not uninsured year in and year out.

To be sure, there are problems with health care, but the correct way to address them is almost certainly not more government intervention.

health care.

Posted by SoccerDad at August 29, 2007 6:18 AM