Poor Healthcare May Shorten Americans Lives:Study

Poor healthcare may shorten American lives: study



By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
WASHINGTON | Thu Oct 7, 2010 2:45am EDT
(Reuters) - Americans die sooner than citizens of a dozen other developed nations and the usual suspects -- obesity, traffic accidents and a high murder rate -- are not to blame, researchers reported on Thursday.

Instead, poor healthcare may be to blame, the team at Columbia University in New York reported.

They found that 15-year survival rates for men and women aged 45 to 65 have fallen in the United States relative to the other 12 countries over the past 30 years.

Such figures are frequently cited by supporters of healthcare reform, and critics often point out that the United States also has higher rates of obesity, more traffic fatalities and more murders than these countries.

Columbia's Peter Muennig, who led the study published in the journal Health Affairs, said his team accounted for these factors this time.

"But what really surprised us was that all of the usual suspects -- smoking, obesity, traffic accidents, and homicides -- are not the culprits," Meunnig said in a statement.

"The U.S. doesn't stand out as doing any worse in these areas than any of the other countries we studied, leading us to believe that failings in the U.S. health care system, such as costly specialized and fragmented care, are likely playing a large role in this relatively poor performance on improvements in life expectancy."

In June, the Commonwealth Fund, which advocates on and does research focusing on healthcare reform, reported that Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as residents of other developed countries -- $7,290 per person -- but get lower quality and less efficiency.

Muennig and Sherry Glied compared the United States to Australia, Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.

All these countries provide universal health insurance, in contrast to the United States, where 15 percent of the population lacks health insurance, although healthcare reform passed in March is designed to lower that disparity.

Republicans have promised to derail the legislation if they gain power in Congress in next month's elections.

COSTS GO UP

Between 1975 and 2005, medical costs went up in all the countries, as did life expectancy.

But costs went up far more in the United States and life expectancy increased to a far lower degree.

Glied and Meunnig do not believe obesity accounts for the differences. While more Americans are obese, overall the populations in all the nations have been getting fatter, they said.

"For obesity to explain the decline in U.S. life expectancy or the increase in health spending relative to the 12 comparison countries, Americans would have to be becoming obese at a faster rate than people in the comparison nations over time," they wrote. But this has not been happening.

Americans are less likely to smoke, and while Americans are more likely to die in car crashes or be murdered, again these rates do not explain the lower life expectancy, the Columbia team said.

"The findings undercut critics who might argue that the U.S. health care system is not in need of major changes," they wrote.

They noted that the United States has been dropping in life expectancy tables for decades.

"In 1950, the United States was fifth among the leading industrialized nations with respect to female life expectancy at birth, surpassed only by Sweden, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands," they wrote. At last count, the United States was 46th in female life expectancy; 49th for both sexes.

I was wondering what S&L's solution to the health care crisis was and is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

I was wondering what S&L's solution to the health care crisis was and is?

---

I don't have one!

I do appreciate both sides of the debate though. Do you remember Little House on the Prarie? I'm sure you do. I remember one episode wherecmeone went to see the doctor, and when presented with the bill, the patient gave the doctor a chicken. Men and women not only go into medicine to help society, but also to make money. The better the doctor; the more money he can make. I believe this to be good for society; it brings in new doctors to compete and the whole base gets better and better (in theory lol). I suppose that's why we are always hearing stories of people coming here from other nations for treatment.

This is my main problem with nationalized medicine. Well that and the fact that our government screws up everything it touches. You nationalize medicine, and it eliminates competition and incentive. Of course, now it is universally available, but will it be compromised? Now you may say these are talking points, but I've worked with several Canadians who do nothing but bitch about their system.

It is almost universally accepted that one key cost is malpractice insurance. This should be addressed.

One big arguement was that 30 MM American don't have insurance. I've suggested that our government build hard assets in the form of federally run regional health centers to serve these 30 MM Americans. This way one doesn't have to include 100% of the people for 10% of those effected, and building assets leads to productive output.

Secondarily, the government can give those uninsured Medicare or an equivalent. Yes, you and I will pay for it, and the system would probably end rife with fraud, but what else can you do to care for the masses?

It's a real conundrum.