You often hear critics of health care reform say that we have the best health care in the world and that the reformers are trying to destroy it. Is the true? Do we have the best health care in the world?
I guess it depends on what you mean by “best.” Certainly, many Canadian and others come to the US for medical procedures that they cannot get at home or for which they would have to wait a very long time. The royalty, celebrities and rich of the world often come to America to get treatment. The U.S. has more of the best medical centers, best-equipped hospitals and most highly specialized physicians in the world. Many of the world’s advances in curing and treating decease originate in America. In that sense we may fairly say we have the best health care in the world. We have the best health care that money can buy, if you have the money.
The best quality health care that can be purchased is only one measure of “best.” Most of us will never be treated by a world-renowned physician or have miracle surgery. “Best” has many measures. So while we may have the absolute “best” health care that is available, do we have the best health care for the average person?
Let us look at some measures of health care quality. Consider life expectancy at birth. We rank 50th, a little ahead of Cuba and Albania but way behind Japan, Singapore, France, Sweden, Norway and Spain. Many factors may enter into life expectancy other than the quality of health care. Homicide rates, suicide rates, and highway death tolls may work against us. In Highway Death Tolls, we lead the world at 15.5 per 100,000. That stat is obviously not a function of the quality of our health care. We have more cars and drive more miles than most nations. Lifestyle choices such as smoking, drug use, diet and sedentary lifestyle may also have more impact on longevity than medical intervention.
Let us look at another measure: infant mortality. In the United States infant mortality is 6.26 per 1000 live births, which barely beats Croatia at 6.37 but trails Cuba at 5.82 and Canada at 5.04. Our infant mortality rate is almost twice as high as that of Japan and Norway. Maybe again, there are social factors to blame. Maybe we have more crack addicted mothers giving birth and more young unwed mothers, but the statistics are, I think, a valid indication that we do not have the “best” health care in the world.
On some other measures of health, the United States also scores not quite so well. It you look at the “probability of not reaching sixty,” Americans have a 12.8% probability which beats Poland at 17.5% and Portugal at 13.1% but trails Denmark at 12%, France at 11.4%, Germany at 10.6%, Spain at 10.3%, and Canada at 9.5%.
On some measures of health, we score quite well. On the survival rate for cancer, we lead the world at 62.9% for women and 66.3% for men, followed by everyone else with Spain at 59% (women), England at only 52.7 (women) and 44.8% (men).
In 2000, The World Health Organization ranked the nations of the world as to the quality of health care for the first and only time. The U.S. ranked 37th out of 191 countries, trailing France, Italy, Spain, Greece, The UK, Canada and Costa Rico. We were immediately followed by Slovenia and Cuba. The methodology and weight given to various factors proved controversial, but nevertheless the poor showing by the United States should cast doubt on the claim of the best health care in the world.
Do we have the best health care in the world? I don’t think so.
Top Stories
Posts
I would like to believe that we do, but the trouble is that it is usually only available to those who can afford it. For with the system now being driven by profit margins, most doctors and hospitals are only interested in doing what they are legally obligated to do when dealing with someone who can't afford to pay full price.
ReplyDeleteBe assured that I know this all too painfully well from personal experience. For there has been something seriously wrong with me for over 16 years now, and I have yet to find a doctor who will is willing to get serious about finding what it is.
On infant mortality: The infant mortality rate is another misunderstood statistic that is commonly used by single-payer advocates to advance their agenda. The main issue with the infant mortality rate is how the OECD comes up with its data. In this case, the problem is the definition of “Live Birth.” The U.S. includes in its infant mortality rate extremely low-birth-weight infants (including those that will not survive) while many nations (many who score very high on the OECD list) DO NOT INCLUDE THESE SAME INFANTS. Even the WHO (World Health Organization) has gone on record and noted that across 23 European countries there are vast differences in recording and reporting live birth and fetal death within the European region. Essentially, the U.S. lands a lower ranking because it includes doomed low-birth-weight infants while many in the ranking do not. Now I ask you, how is this ranking fair and accurate? And how can anybody tie the quality of a country’s health care on this skewered ranking?
ReplyDelete