10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

[Fieldmouse]

10 Surprising Facts about American HealthCare

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

No. 649
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
by Scott Atlas
[/align]

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1]Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
[ul][*]Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).[*]Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.[*]More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).[*]Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).[/ul]
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]
[/align]Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]
Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.
[/align]

[vc1111]

Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

A commentary on genetics or health care? Prove your answer.

Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

And what about the same comparison as it relates to morbidity rates???

Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

One might make the same argument about access to Ritalin in America...and the same questions would walk hand in hand with the obtuse conclusion inferred above.

Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.

And these results were culled from whom? An insurance company organization levying questions to the insured? What about the uninsured? Are the poor and the working poor funding this procedure out of pocket with the same frequency? If you believe that I have a dozen bridges to sell you. Good grief, man, at least take even a cursory glance at the source and you can easily see that they set out to write a book whose mission was to draw the conclusion somehow. Do the authors of the book cite their sources? Why were those not provided in the supposedly unbiased facts posted in the same paragraph?

The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Perhaps the profit margins as not quite as vulgar in those nations, eh? Of course you will have more players when unbridled pricing is allowed.

Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations

Most of which 1 of 6 Americans will not have access to...because they are uninsured. Further, with major health care reform, how much more innovation might we have? Instead of funding the attorneys who line the outskirts of every facility like buzzards, we might actually have more pharmacological research performed in this nation vice overseas. And note the source, whose mission is to justify subsidies, grants etc to Congress...which is flanked by lobbyists on all sides. As your buddy Rush always says, follow the money trail and see who has a vested interest in drawing a given conclusion...and why.

I could go on. Shredding these "facts" is child's play.

"
Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times. "


read this as...." a man whose income is dependent upon grants and the proliferation of the status quo. "

[ipscshooter]

ORIGINAL: vc1111

Most of which 1 of 6 Americans will not have access to...because they are uninsured.

To reach that number, don't you have to include thirty million illegals?

Further, with major health care reform, how much more innovation might we have?

Usually, folks talking about "major health care reform" are talking about socializing healthcare. I don't think we'll get the quality that we have now if the government takes over the process. You might want to ask falcon about government run healthcare programs (VA)...
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.a...age=1&key=

[burniegoeasily]

Quick question;

When has a county hospital ever refused to treat a patient?

[ipscshooter]

ORIGINAL: burniegoeasily

Quick question;

When has a county hospital ever refused to treat a patient?

They don't. Harris County Hospital District treats low income folks for free. They give away $100 Million per year in treatment JUST FOR ILLEGALS. Treatment of illegals in California costs a billion a year...

[etothepii]

ORIGINAL: burniegoeasily

Quick question;

When has a county hospital ever refused to treat a patient?

LOL!! Michelle Obama's job was to turn the poor away from University Hospital's ER.

"An ER visit for something that's not an emergency costs the medical center $1,200," said Kelly Sullivan, a hospital spokeswoman. "That's sucking up dollars in health care that we don't all have to just blow through carelessly.
"Michelle inspired us . . . to step back and take a holistic approach to this problem."

Keep out the riff-raff, Michelle/ You wouldn't want to "blow" any money on helping them.

[Fieldmouse]

I could go on. Shredding these "facts" is child's play.

If that's what you call your BS. Hey, did you see the numbered links in the article? Those ref back to the sources for the information published. I see no sources for your so called "Shredding of facts". Please let me know when you have them.

[vc1111]

To reach that number, don't you have to include thirty million illegals?

It depends on who you ask. Anytime you're dealing in these reports, which are essentially moving targets scattered across wide areas of a large country, it will be hard to say what and who is included. Further, the number of illegals included is statistically insignificant to the point. If its 1 in 7 instead of 1 in 6 is it then not a problem?

Usually, folks talking about "major health care reform" are talking about socializing healthcare. I don't think we'll get the quality that we have now if the government takes over the process. You might want to ask falcon about government run healthcare programs (VA)...
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=3378644&mpage=1&key=

Absolutely untrue, and the premise you put forth is a method, a tactic put forth by those who would immediately try to squelch any discussion of reform on any level. I will argue that major reforms in the areas of insurance, tort reform, and cost-sharing are in order and past due. So, no, Ips, I don't need to ask falcon anything because the two issues, the two ideas are simply not joined at the hip as you and others would have the public presume.

When has a county hospital ever refused to treat a patient?

Wrong question and if I may be so bold, a dumb question, quite frankly. The larger question is not who is being treated and who is not, the question is who is getting stuck paying for it, and who is getting to skate. The larger question is how much more care could be afforded if the costs were examined and properly pooled. The larger question includes examination of waste inherent in a system where unnecessary tests are routinely ordered for nothing more than keeping the attorneys and the lawsuits at bay. The larger questions ask why some areas had shortages of or no emergency room physicians due to the risks inherent in the present system. The larger questions ask about increased morbidity by those who wait till the ailment or injury is so exacerbated that they MUST seek care despite having no insurance and barely enough income to preclude a "welfare" payment of the costs.

They don't. Harris County Hospital District treats low income folks for free. They give away $100 Million per year in treatment JUST FOR ILLEGALS. Treatment of illegals in California costs a billion a year...

You couldn't be more wrong. They give away only what they cannot pass onto those currently insured by way of ever-increasing fees, which leads to ever increasing insurance costs, which leads to ever-increasing oversight, which leads to ever increasing bureaucracy. Both of you essentially make broad arguments for reform without acknowledging it even to yourselves.

Hey, did you see the numbered links in the article? Those ref back to the sources for the information published. I see no sources for your so called "Shredding of facts".

Lol, that all you got fieldmouse? I shouldn't be surprised.

I made clear, distinct, and direct references to the footnotes YOU provided . If you wish to know what I used, look no further than YOUR post. Obviously, you didn't even read the footnotes for the stuff YOU posted. No wonder you swallow all that tripe, you don't even understand the agendas of those who provided it.

Read my comments again. I defy you to answer them intelligently. They raise a number of legitimate questions and illuminate the flawed reasoning in the hogwash written in the post you provided such as "Conclusion.Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries."

Only a moron could accept such a "conclusion" at its face value as acceptable and without question. Even a dull child might ask, "Can any system, any society, accept escalating costs and increasing numbers of uninsureds indefinitely?"

Further, the entire premise that our system is okay because it compares supposedly "favorably" with other broken systems and thus should be left as is, is founded on twisted reasoning that only a jackass would be able to rationalize. Nevermind that the author and sources are all either corrupted by way of leading assumptions or vested interests.

Real powerful stuff, FM.

[Fieldmouse]

Only a moron could accept such a "conclusion" at its face value as acceptable and without question.

It depends on who you ask. Anytime you're dealing in these reports, which are essentially moving targets scattered across wide areas of a large country, it will be hard to say what and who is included. Further, the number of illegals included is statistically insignificant to the point. If its 1 in 7 instead of 1 in 6 is it then not a problem?

Case in point moron! We've been down this road many times. I've pointed out included in this number is not only people in their twenties who feel no need to buy expensive insurance but also people changing jobs and taking a week off, people who qualify for "free" (though not to you and I) government care, illegals and those who just plain have other things to spend their money on. So I asked you, wouldn't it be better to define the REAL number of uninsured before you throw everyone into piss poor care. Your response was silence!

Absolutely untrue, and the premise you put forth is a method, a tactic put forth by those who would immediately try to squelch any discussion of reform on any level. I will argue that major reforms in the areas of insurance, tort reform, and cost-sharing are in order and past due. So, no, Ips, I don't need to ask falcon anything because the two issues, the two ideas are simply not joined at the hip as you and others would have the public presume.

You've left out ending third payer care. Something the government paying won't solve. I today can cover my whole family for $1200/year that includes physicals and lab testswith $20 for sick visitsand buy catastrophic care with a 5k deductible pretty cheap. Thats a good solution.

Wrong question and if I may be so bold, a dumb question, quite frankly. The larger question is not who is being treated and who is not, the question is who is getting stuck paying for it, and who is getting to skate. The larger question is how much more care could be afforded if the costs were examined and properly pooled. The larger question includes examination of waste inherent in a system where unnecessary tests are routinely ordered for nothing more than keeping the attorneys and the lawsuits at bay. The larger questions ask why some areas had shortages of or no emergency room physicians due to the risks inherent in the present system. The larger questions ask about increased morbidity by those who wait till the ailment or injury is so exacerbated that they MUST seek care despite having no insurance and barely enough income to preclude a "welfare" payment of the costs.

Funny how you ask all these question but not the questions who's not being cared for in the socialized medicines, which BTW I posted the statistics for and I noticed you posted none. NATA Nothing. Funny, how you don't question the shortages overseas because of lack of funding. Funny, you don't even think about the lost in worker productivity because of poeple waiting for medical care.

I made clear, distinct, and direct references to the footnotes YOU provided . If you wish to know what I used, look no further than YOUR post. Obviously, you didn't even read the footnotes for the stuff YOU posted. No wonder you swallow all that tripe, you don't even understand the agendas of those who provided it.

I've noticed one big thing missing in everyone of your posts. WTF are your credentials? You must be a doctor yourself, correct? You obviously must have some because you have NEVER posted anything to refute my numbers or research that I have posted on this subject. Not once! I've gone the extra mile on the subject, even when I've shown medical care has been denied in Britain due to lifestyles. You went silent after that one.

Yes VC, your very short on everthing when it comes to your posts and this is no different. Put up or shut up. You've been called out! Hech, I guess I need to appoligise, your the medical expert here, correct?

Check your thermometer 'Mouse; I think Hell just froze over. Finally, a topic we can agree on .

Just my experience, but I've got to agree that America's got it all over the socialized Euro nations and Canada as far as healthcare is concerned. The simple fact is you can get access to world class hospitals, doctors, and cutting edge medicinein the US on a days notice if you happen to have insurance or Medicaid. Try that in Canada or France. For that matter, try to findbleeding-edge research medicineperiod in Canada or France.

About the only change I'd personally like to see made to our healthcare system is an expansion of medicaid for serious illness and children, beyond that, I'd say we're doing pretty well for ourselves.