US and UK Health Care in International comparison

Post Reply New Topic

The Commonwealth Fund just released a study comparing the health care systems of 11 OECD countries.

Here, the United Kingdom comes out as the # 1 health care system in general when measured on dimensions of quality of care, access, efficiency, equity and healthy lives (see the 2nd link for variable descriptions).



This is somewhat surprising, as the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK has been criticized for years (or even decades) for poor quality of care, long waiting times and other various displays of excessive tomfoolery... The NHS has even been held up as an example of the failures of single-payer health care and so-called "socialized medicine". It would seem that such views are unwarranted upon closer inspection.

Unfortunately for the US, though, there is little comfort to be found in the study, as the US again falls way behind other industrialised countries, ranking last in 5 out of 12 categories and failing to excel in any category.

Furthermore, this conclusion seems to be backed by public polling data, as demonstrated below:



UK citizens tend to have a persistent high opinion of their health care system when comparing it to other countries, while US citizens are actually slightly more likely to view their health care system as worse than systems in other countries. Furthermore, the most negative views about the US health care system are (surprisingly, perhaps) found among Independents, and not Democrats.



Food for thought:

• The United States does not even excel when it comes to timeliness of care (see page 21 in the 2nd link for definitions) coming in at 5th place, an aspect otherwise frequently held as a major advantage of the US health care system compared to other countries.
• The rankings on Equity may need to be qualified, as the US (see page 25 in the 2nd link) scores significantly poorer than any of other 10 countries. Measured by differences in health care delivery between low and high income, the difference between the US (11th) and New Zealand (10th) is almost as high as between New Zealand and Sweden (1st). This is likely due to the fact that the US is the only country in the study without a universal health care system.
• When comparing expenditures per capita (ppp), the US health care system is 50 percent more expensive than the next-most expensive system (Norway), 2.7 times as expensive as the least expensive system (New Zealand) and 2.5 times as expensive as the highest ranking system (The UK).
• A major caveat to the ranking (and the top position for the UK) is the final dimension "Healthy Lives", using objective measures of life outcomes (see page 26 in the 2nd link). So the excellent rankings on the delivery of health care in the UK apparently fails to translate into good health outcomes. Using this measure, France instead achieved the highest rank. Conversely, this suggests that the good health outcomes in France are likely not to product of the health care system, but of a healthier lifestyle among French citizens.

Please discuss.

Sources:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... ror-mirror
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media ... r_2014.pdf
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/2 ... re-isnt-1/

Last edited by GGPViper on 25 Jun 2014, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

We are behind the curve as far as healthcare is concerned. We don't have a nationalized system that saves lives. People die because the don't have "health insurance." This is wrong for an 'advanced" country. It's ridiculous, in fact.

I'm sure if you could eliminate all the data from the lower end of the socio-economic middle class and below the US would rank fairly high in most non-cost related categories.

I know when we were dirt poor and had no insurance, the healthcare system could care less, and my wife was given sub-standard care at sub-standard facilities once I even managed to find somewhere that would take a patient without health insurance (besides the emergency room). At least I could go to the VA, but that had its own set of problems to tackle.

In fairness to the USA, it does seem to be a good exporter of healthcare. I know there are some surgeries that the UK simply cannot support specialist surgeons for, because the country is too damn small and they wouldn't get regular practice. The USA can provide this surgery, so they can sell it to Europeans who are rich and desperate - and even the poor can usually raise money to pay for treatment.

Do I think that's better than having a totally amazing healthcare system?

"Medicare" is on a trajectory to bankrupt the country. President Obama called it a "ticking time bomb". Somehow more it is good?

If you get more for less money (by adopting the UK system for example), that's usually considered a good thing. 3400 vs 8500 is a big difference. If you pay 8500 and get crappier service than the people paying 3400 you're doing it wrong.

Medicare is government run healthcare. The government created this "ticking time bomb" with the segment of "national
healthcare" it manages now, so if national health care was expanded, then why would the citizen get more service for less cost ?

Why would the government change? Why would the very rich, and special interests that control the government suddenly give up the money?

No, I meant they should abandon Medicare and the other systems in place, and adopt a system similar to the NHS in the UK. It's what business people call the best practices model. You see who does X best, and you try to copy/apply that to your business. Policitians almost never do this. Voters and activists should be campaigning to get rid of the current healthcare system and just copy one of the better ones from abroad. If a politician showed these facts to the public, surely he should be able to get some votes for it. When people realize they pay 8500 for crap and other people pay 3400 and every single aspect of healthcare is better... why would they go for that? Pay more than double and get crap?

The US figure includes private spending - I think I'm right in saying public spending is also more expensive.

Switching to single-buyer does provide significant cost saving advantages, cuts can be made to other departments (looking at you, defense! Looking at you, "justice"!), and taxes can always be raised. If the UK (and every other country on that list) can do it, then so can the USA - or, if you prefer, individual states.

Just to clarify, Medicare IS NOT government run healthcare. The only thing Medicare really does is pay reimbursements to private and non-profit medical care.



^I will agree with this 100%

How is it not "government run healthcare" ?

Quoted: "The term 'single-payer' only describes the funding mechanism". "Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, then pays for all services"

We have a 'Medicare tax' and then the government pays for healthcare for Medicare participants.

source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

Why does it matter who runs it, government or someone else? f**k, I'd let the UK government run my healthcare if I could. Would save a lot of money and I get better care.

The government isn't running anything in healthcare (other than the VHA). Are you trying to say that the Cleveland Clinic is run by the federal government? A large portion of their revenue comes from Medicare.

Government health insurance for all seems to be precisely what is meant by "single payer" national health care. The government sets the regulations, requirements, policies, reimbursements, thus centrally manages i.e., "runs" health care.