Debunking the 47 million uninsured myth
Toro @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:52 am
Robair Robair:
Toro Toro:
At $50k and over, I could easily afford health insurance.
Did you ever have to use it?Yes.
I would, hands down, take my health insurer over what I had in Canada. My coverage is fabulous.
But that's me. Others have had a different experience.
Robair @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:08 am
Toro Toro:
Robair Robair:
Toro Toro:
At $50k and over, I could easily afford health insurance.
Did you ever have to use it?Yes.
I would, hands down, take my health insurer over what I had in Canada. My coverage is fabulous.
But that's me. Others have had a different experience.
I'll say.
Like I said before, my inlaws have insurance throught the Navy. He's retired Navy and has had heart trouble lately. They have burned through their retirement because of that.
I have a cousin-in-law, I guess is what she would be. Born with a heart condition, her valves need work once in awhile. The ONLY jobs she can take are government jobs. Otherwise she can not get insurance. God help her if she ends up unemployed at the wrong time.
fifeboy @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:45 am
Toro Toro:
Yes.
I would, hands down, take my health insurer over what I had in Canada. My coverage is fabulous
But that's me. Others have had a different experience.
Like someone pointed out in one of the earlier threads on the topic: In the U.S. health care is seen as a commodity. In Canada it's a right.
fifeboy @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:09 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
There are many studies comparing Canada/US health outcomes that have been conducted over the years, but the most comprehensive to date is a summary of them all
To me, one of the most interesting things in this whole study of studies is this
$1:
Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that Canadian end-stage renal patients truly have higher survival than those in the US. The explanation for this difference may lie in differences in the ownership of dialysis facilities. Virtually all Canadian dialysis care is not-for-profit, while for-profit providers deliver approximately 75% of American care for end-stage renal failure. A systematic review has shown a higher mortality in patients undergoing dialysis in for-profit centres.
Then looking at http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/CAN_Comparison_Sheet.pdfwe find a most interesting statement.
$1:
Canadian patients are twice as likely to receive kidney transplants as are Americans. (Note: this
likely reflects the profitability of continuing dialysis rather than performing a transplant.)
• Adjusted monthly costs of treatment were $503 higher in the U.S. (Largely due to the far higher
rates of dialysis).
• Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. patients had reprocessed dialyzers used on them, compared
with 0.0% of Canadian patients.
likely reflects the profitability of continuing dialysis rather than performing a transplant.)
• Adjusted monthly costs of treatment were $503 higher in the U.S. (Largely due to the far higher
rates of dialysis).
• Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. patients had reprocessed dialyzers used on them, compared
with 0.0% of Canadian patients.
Toro @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:25 am
Robair Robair:
Like I said before, my inlaws have insurance throught the Navy. He's retired Navy and has had heart trouble lately. They have burned through their retirement because of that.
I have a cousin-in-law, I guess is what she would be. Born with a heart condition, her valves need work once in awhile. The ONLY jobs she can take are government jobs. Otherwise she can not get insurance. God help her if she ends up unemployed at the wrong time.
I have a cousin-in-law, I guess is what she would be. Born with a heart condition, her valves need work once in awhile. The ONLY jobs she can take are government jobs. Otherwise she can not get insurance. God help her if she ends up unemployed at the wrong time.
Sure. You can always find such stories. I've met people who have been denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition.
Likewise, there's a Canadian from Quebec who moved down here a few years ago whose father died from brain cancer. It took him six months to see a specialist when he lived in Quebec and he is convinced that the delay killed him. That was 10 years ago, so maybe things have improved. When my grandfather moved from Saskatchewan to Vancouver Island, it took him five months to see an oncologist, even though he had a long history of cancer, and that was after my father pulled strings to jump the queue and get him into see the doctor. And a friend of mine was denied Avastin though he was dying of colon cancer because BC Health had not approved it even though it was available in the States.
So there are always stories that you can use to reinforce the prevailing views.
herbie @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:29 am
fifeboy fifeboy:
Toro Toro:
Yes.
I would, hands down, take my health insurer over what I had in Canada. My coverage is fabulous
But that's me. Others have had a different experience.
Like someone pointed out in one of the earlier threads on the topic: In the U.S. health care is seen as a commodity. In Canada it's a right.
That's what I have tried to point out in this forum and in others for years. It is your RIGHT to health services, this is something Canadians hold dear and is very distinct from American thoughts on the subject.
I can't understand American anti arguments where people are more concerned over the right of doctors to maximize salaries, or the right to choose who rips you off for your insurance premium than their own right to obtain actual service.
It's like the red herring of MRI, a last resort tool being flogged as a first or proper choice.
Toro @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:45 am
Here are a couple more articles of interest.
$1:
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 beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. 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 United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. 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.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
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.”
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 with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. 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 United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. 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.
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
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.”
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 with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html
And a Canadian doctor on the myths of Canadian Medicare in the US.
$1:
Universal health insurance is on the American policy agenda for the fifth time since World War II. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose public coverage for only the elderly and the very poor, while Canada opted for a universal program for hospitals and physicians' services. As a policy analyst, I know there are lessons to be learned from studying the effect of different approaches in similar jurisdictions. But, as a Canadian with lots of American friends and relatives, I am saddened that Americans seem incapable of learning them.
Our countries are joined at the hip. We peacefully share a continent, a British heritage of representative government and now ownership of GM. And, until 50 years ago, we had similar health systems, healthcare costs and vital statistics.
The U.S.' and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the world's largest health policy experiment. And the results?
On coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also provide coverage for programs for home care, long-term care, pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment, although there are co-pays.
On the U.S. side, 46 million people have no insurance, millions are underinsured and healthcare bills bankrupt more than 1 million Americans every year.
Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.
On costs, Canada spends 10% of its economy on healthcare; the U.S. spends 16%. The extra 6% of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80% to 90% lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.
Lessons No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices.
Because most of the difference in spending is for non-patient care, Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more often and take more drugs. We even have more lung transplant surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20% lower.
Lesson No. 4: Single-payer plans can deliver the goods because their funding goes to services, not overhead.
The Canadian system does have its problems, and these also provide important lessons. Notwithstanding a few well-publicized and misleading cases, Canadians needing urgent care get immediate treatment. But we do wait too long for much elective care, including appointments with family doctors and specialists and selected surgical procedures. We also do a poor job managing chronic disease.
However, according to the New York-based Commonwealth Fund, both the American and the Canadian systems fare badly in these areas. In fact, an April U.S. Government Accountability Office report noted that U.S. emergency room wait times have increased, and patients who should be seen immediately are now waiting an average of 28 minutes. The GAO has also raised concerns about two- to four-month waiting times for mammograms.
On closer examination, most of these problems have little to do with public insurance or even overall resources. Despite the delays, the GAO said there is enough mammogram capacity.
These problems are largely caused by our shared politico-cultural barriers to quality of care. In 19th century North America, doctors waged a campaign against quacks and snake-oil salesmen and attained a legislative monopoly on medical practice. In return, they promised to set and enforce standards of practice. By and large, it didn't happen. And perverse incentives like fee-for-service make things even worse.
Using techniques like those championed by the Boston-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, providers can eliminate most delays. In Hamilton, Ontario, 17 psychiatrists have linked up with 100 family doctors and 80 social workers to offer some of the world's best access to mental health services. And in Toronto, simple process improvements mean you can now get your hip assessed in one week and get a new one, if you need it, within a month.
Lesson No. 5: Canadian healthcare delivery problems have nothing to do with our single-payer system and can be fixed by re-engineering for quality.
U.S. health policy would be miles ahead if policymakers could learn these lessons. But they seem less interested in Canada's, or any other nation's, experience than ever. Why?
American democracy runs on money. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies have the fuel. Analysts see hundreds of billions of premiums wasted on overhead that could fund care for the uninsured. But industry executives and shareholders see bonuses and dividends.
Compounding the confusion is traditional American ignorance of what happens north of the border, which makes it easy to mislead people. Boilerplate anti-government rhetoric does the same. The U.S. media, legislators and even presidents have claimed that our "socialized" system doesn't let us choose our own doctors. In fact, Canadians have free choice of physicians. It's Americans these days who are restricted to "in-plan" doctors.
Unfortunately, many Americans won't get to hear the straight goods because vested interests are promoting a caricature of the Canadian experience.
Our countries are joined at the hip. We peacefully share a continent, a British heritage of representative government and now ownership of GM. And, until 50 years ago, we had similar health systems, healthcare costs and vital statistics.
The U.S.' and Canada's different health insurance decisions make up the world's largest health policy experiment. And the results?
On coverage, all Canadians have insurance for hospital and physician services. There are no deductibles or co-pays. Most provinces also provide coverage for programs for home care, long-term care, pharmaceuticals and durable medical equipment, although there are co-pays.
On the U.S. side, 46 million people have no insurance, millions are underinsured and healthcare bills bankrupt more than 1 million Americans every year.
Lesson No. 1: A single-payer system would eliminate most U.S. coverage problems.
On costs, Canada spends 10% of its economy on healthcare; the U.S. spends 16%. The extra 6% of GDP amounts to more than $800 billion per year. The spending gap between the two nations is almost entirely because of higher overhead. Canadians don't need thousands of actuaries to set premiums or thousands of lawyers to deny care. Even the U.S. Medicare program has 80% to 90% lower administrative costs than private Medicare Advantage policies. And providers and suppliers can't charge as much when they have to deal with a single payer.
Lessons No. 2 and 3: Single-payer systems reduce duplicative administrative costs and can negotiate lower prices.
Because most of the difference in spending is for non-patient care, Canadians actually get more of most services. We see the doctor more often and take more drugs. We even have more lung transplant surgery. We do get less heart surgery, but not so much less that we are any more likely to die of heart attacks. And we now live nearly three years longer, and our infant mortality is 20% lower.
Lesson No. 4: Single-payer plans can deliver the goods because their funding goes to services, not overhead.
The Canadian system does have its problems, and these also provide important lessons. Notwithstanding a few well-publicized and misleading cases, Canadians needing urgent care get immediate treatment. But we do wait too long for much elective care, including appointments with family doctors and specialists and selected surgical procedures. We also do a poor job managing chronic disease.
However, according to the New York-based Commonwealth Fund, both the American and the Canadian systems fare badly in these areas. In fact, an April U.S. Government Accountability Office report noted that U.S. emergency room wait times have increased, and patients who should be seen immediately are now waiting an average of 28 minutes. The GAO has also raised concerns about two- to four-month waiting times for mammograms.
On closer examination, most of these problems have little to do with public insurance or even overall resources. Despite the delays, the GAO said there is enough mammogram capacity.
These problems are largely caused by our shared politico-cultural barriers to quality of care. In 19th century North America, doctors waged a campaign against quacks and snake-oil salesmen and attained a legislative monopoly on medical practice. In return, they promised to set and enforce standards of practice. By and large, it didn't happen. And perverse incentives like fee-for-service make things even worse.
Using techniques like those championed by the Boston-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement, providers can eliminate most delays. In Hamilton, Ontario, 17 psychiatrists have linked up with 100 family doctors and 80 social workers to offer some of the world's best access to mental health services. And in Toronto, simple process improvements mean you can now get your hip assessed in one week and get a new one, if you need it, within a month.
Lesson No. 5: Canadian healthcare delivery problems have nothing to do with our single-payer system and can be fixed by re-engineering for quality.
U.S. health policy would be miles ahead if policymakers could learn these lessons. But they seem less interested in Canada's, or any other nation's, experience than ever. Why?
American democracy runs on money. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies have the fuel. Analysts see hundreds of billions of premiums wasted on overhead that could fund care for the uninsured. But industry executives and shareholders see bonuses and dividends.
Compounding the confusion is traditional American ignorance of what happens north of the border, which makes it easy to mislead people. Boilerplate anti-government rhetoric does the same. The U.S. media, legislators and even presidents have claimed that our "socialized" system doesn't let us choose our own doctors. In fact, Canadians have free choice of physicians. It's Americans these days who are restricted to "in-plan" doctors.
Unfortunately, many Americans won't get to hear the straight goods because vested interests are promoting a caricature of the Canadian experience.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... ?track=rss
bootlegga @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:11 am
Good articles, thanks!
fifeboy @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:10 am
Toro Toro:
Here are a couple more articles of interest.
$1:
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 beat the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes that their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. Before we turn to government as the solution, however, we should consider some unheralded facts about America’s health care system.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. 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 United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. 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 United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.
2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.
All stats from WHO. unless otherwise noted.
http://www.who.int/whosis/en/
But if you look at the overall statistics for age standardized mortality rate for cancer, the rate in the U.S. is 134/100 000 and in Canada it is 138/100 000. I would maintain that is statistally insignifigant. That is not to mean we should be complacent and ignore those 138 people, but I see this as statistics mining.
Toro Toro:
3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. 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..
Statins are given to reduce the possibility of heart disease from blockage of arteries due to cholesterol. I should know, I take one. So, if that is the case, death rates in the U.S. from Cardiovascular disease should be much lower than in these countries. Look at the stats:
Age standardized mortality rate for Cardiovascular Disease
U.S. 188/100 000
Germany 211
Italy 174
Netherlands 171
Switzerland 142
U.K. 182
It appears that the Germany has a problem they need to address, but the others are doing quite well, thank you very much, without the help of the American Health Care System.
Toro Toro:
4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:
* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent)...
* Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent)...
Yet, again, American stats on cancer deaths are only slightly better than in Canada.
Toro Toro:
5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”
Toro Toro:
6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... _Sheet.pdf
Knee Replacement Waiting Times
Coyte, P. et al “Waiting Times for Knee-Replacement Surgery in the United States and Ontario,” NEJM
331(16) (1994)
Contact: Dr. Robert McMurtry ([email protected])
Major Findings:
*Note: all U.S. data are for U.S. Medicare patients. The lower waiting times for U.S. patients show that a single-payer
system could be implemented in the United States with little or no waiting times for care.
• Median waiting times for orthopedic consultation were 2 weeks in the U.S. and 4 weeks in Canada.
• Median waiting times once surgery had been scheduled were 3 weeks in the U.S. and 8 weeks in
Canada.2
• Overall satisfaction with the surgical experience was similar in both countries (85.3% U.S. and
83.5% Canada).
2
Toro Toro:
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.”
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media ... %20pdf.pdf 18% of Canadians said "rebuild completely" while 28% of Americans thought so.
Toro Toro:
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 with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).
9.
Toro Toro:
Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.
Possibly so, but how does this help their health outcomes, as per point 3 above..
Toro Toro:
10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.
Again, possibly so, but does this help ALL Americans, or only those who can afford it?
BeaverFever @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:31 am
$1:
Yes.
I would, hands down, take my health insurer over what I had in Canada. My coverage is fabulous.
But that's me. Others have had a different experience.
I would, hands down, take my health insurer over what I had in Canada. My coverage is fabulous.
But that's me. Others have had a different experience.
I would venture then that you have not had to use your insurance for anything other than routine check-ups in your insurer's provider network and maybe the odd examination for minor illnesses. No matter how good it is, it is not the "any illness, any place, no dollar limit" insurance we have here. You definitely have limitations on coverage, all private insurances plans do.
Would you be willing to divulge what your monthly premium, deductibles/co-pays and limits are?
Pseudonym @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:57 pm
While we're on the subject of healthcare, does Canada have any sort of tort reform or medical malpractice protection/lawsuit laws to guard against the sort of stuff that is driving some doctors out of business in the States?
Thanos @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:59 pm
Pseudonym Pseudonym:
While we're on the subject of healthcare, does Canada have any sort of tort reform or medical malpractice protection/lawsuit laws to guard against the sort of stuff that is driving some doctors out of business in the States?
We have out standard court-costs to be covered by whoever loses stuff, but beyond that I dunno.
Pseudonym @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:08 pm
All I know is that the US is a lawsuit-crazy nation led mostly by lawyers who have little inclination to try to stop the madness.
But anyway, I like having the freedom to choose my healthcare based upon what the market is willing to sell me, with the provision that they will do their level best to save my life if I am in an emergency situation.
Scape @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:20 pm
Don't have a lot of time (work) so I will post this:
You are "pre-Diseased"
In depth look at pre-screening for various cancers and their effectiveness. They talk about the US system and litigation and how the Canadian system was perhaps too successful in their awareness campaigns.
BeaverFever @ Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:27 pm
all doctors have malpractice insurance through the college of physicians and surgeons, but large rewards for medical malpractice or other personal injury suits are far less common. Courts are generally hesitant to award huge sums of money for vague claims like "pain and suffering" and more agressive in dismissing frivolous lawsuits. I also notice there are restrictions on ambulance-chaser ads on tv and the media from personal injury attourneys, although I think that is self-imposed rather than government regulated.
I found this online:
$1:
Posted On: June 17, 2009 by John McKiggan
Medical Malpractice Compensation Caps: The Difference Between the United States and Canada
Caps on Medical Malpractice Compensation
Several jurisdictions in the United States have a cap on the amount of compensation that victims are entitled to receive in their medical malpractice claims. The amount of the cap, and what is capped, varies state by state.
No Malpractice Caps in Canada (sort of)
In Canada, while there are no caps specifically targeted at medical malpractice claims, the Supreme Court of Canada has created a cap that applies to all serious personal injury claims.
Since most people who contact me for medical malpractice claims have suffered catastrophic injuries, the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling effectively caps the amount of compensation they are entitled to receive.
Supreme Court Caps Claims
In 1978 in a landmark case known as Teno v. Arnold the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that no matter how seriously injured you are the maximum amount for compensation you can receive for non-pecuniary damages (what is commonly referred to as “pain and suffering”) is $100,000.00.
Cap Supposed to Lower Insurance Rates
The reasoning behind the cap was primarily to prevent insurance rates from skyrocketing and becoming unaffordable for consumers. Unfortunately there was little evidence before the court that insurance rates would be effected by a compensation cap.
Taking inflation into account the amount capped on pain and suffering is currently considered to be slightly more than $300,000.00. But that maximum amount is only paid to the most catastrophically injured victims, persons who suffered quadriplegia, severe brain damage and similar injuries.
Victims Often Don't Get Full Award
Even plaintiffs that receive awards that seem large often never see the amount decided by the judge or jury. Many personal injury compensation awards are dramatically reduced on appeal. These reduced or reversed judgments are almost never reported by the media.
But doctors in Canada are not insured by for profit insurance companies like in the United States. In Canada malpractice coverage is provided by a non-profit defence fund called the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Consumers don't pay for this insurance, so rising rates are not an issue.
Given the enormous costs of pursuing a medical malpractice claim, the Supreme Court of Canada’s cap on compensation presents a real barrier to fair recovery for innocent victims of medical malpractice.
Medical Malpractice Compensation Caps: The Difference Between the United States and Canada
Caps on Medical Malpractice Compensation
Several jurisdictions in the United States have a cap on the amount of compensation that victims are entitled to receive in their medical malpractice claims. The amount of the cap, and what is capped, varies state by state.
No Malpractice Caps in Canada (sort of)
In Canada, while there are no caps specifically targeted at medical malpractice claims, the Supreme Court of Canada has created a cap that applies to all serious personal injury claims.
Since most people who contact me for medical malpractice claims have suffered catastrophic injuries, the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling effectively caps the amount of compensation they are entitled to receive.
Supreme Court Caps Claims
In 1978 in a landmark case known as Teno v. Arnold the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that no matter how seriously injured you are the maximum amount for compensation you can receive for non-pecuniary damages (what is commonly referred to as “pain and suffering”) is $100,000.00.
Cap Supposed to Lower Insurance Rates
The reasoning behind the cap was primarily to prevent insurance rates from skyrocketing and becoming unaffordable for consumers. Unfortunately there was little evidence before the court that insurance rates would be effected by a compensation cap.
Taking inflation into account the amount capped on pain and suffering is currently considered to be slightly more than $300,000.00. But that maximum amount is only paid to the most catastrophically injured victims, persons who suffered quadriplegia, severe brain damage and similar injuries.
Victims Often Don't Get Full Award
Even plaintiffs that receive awards that seem large often never see the amount decided by the judge or jury. Many personal injury compensation awards are dramatically reduced on appeal. These reduced or reversed judgments are almost never reported by the media.
But doctors in Canada are not insured by for profit insurance companies like in the United States. In Canada malpractice coverage is provided by a non-profit defence fund called the Canadian Medical Protective Association. Consumers don't pay for this insurance, so rising rates are not an issue.
Given the enormous costs of pursuing a medical malpractice claim, the Supreme Court of Canada’s cap on compensation presents a real barrier to fair recovery for innocent victims of medical malpractice.
http://www.halifaxmedicalmalpracticelawyerblog.com/2009/06/medical_malpractice_compensati.html