Most physicians believe that the United States has the best health system in the world. I am aware of those who argue against that idea, but I dismiss them as a very vocal minority.
They would argue that outcomes are the same or better in Canada and Great Britain. This article should make them pause.
Op death rates ‘far higher’ in UK
Patients undergoing major surgery in the UK are four times as likely to die as those in the US, researchers have found.
The most seriously ill NHS patients are seven times more likely to die than American patients who are as sick.
University College London and Columbia University New York researchers looked at 1,000 patients in each country.
They said a shortage of specialists and intensive care beds and longer waiting lists in the UK affected outcomes.
The NHS carries out around three million operations each year, including around 350,000 emergencies, which carry a higher risk of complications.
As the health care cost debate accelerates, I hope we physicians make the case that better health care does cost more. I have argued before that improved health will take a greater share of GNP, and be worth it.
Now I am not so naive to think that we could not decrease some expenses – especially administrative expenses. However, this article reinforces my belief that our system is far greater than a single payor system.
Professor Monty Mythen, head of anaesthetics at University College London, who led the study, told the Daily Mail: “In America, after surgery, everyone would go into a critical care bed in a highly monitored environment.
“That doesn’t happen in the UK.
“In the Manhattan hospital the care (after surgery) is delivered largely by a consultant surgeon and an anaesthetist.
“We know from other research that more than one third of those who die after a major operation in Britain are not seen by a similar consultant.”
Professor Mythen said NHS waiting lists put patients “at greater risk”.
He said: “We would be suspicious that the diseases would be more advanced simply because the waiting lists are longer.”
This article should make those who favor one payor systems reconsider their positions. The coming articles should shed even more light on this issue. Kudos to the physicians for performing this important research.
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
3 Responses to An argument for our current health system
R.G. Lacsamana
September 10th, 2003 at 10:57 am
I can only say, AMEN!
It is unfortunate that certain factions in the country, including the prestigious American College of Surgeons, keep agitating for the same model that Great Britan and Canada have. While it is true there is allowance for private medical care in Britain, it covers a tiny segment of the population.
An English physican who immigrated here and worked in our hospital as a house physician for two years in the late ’60s
told us of a typical daily patient load close to 100, sometimes exceeding that. Not to mention those long waiting lists, the decrepit facilities, the aging equipment, the rationing of care, and so on and on and on.
The national health service in Great Britain would have collapsed a long time ago if it were not for thousands of physicians from abroad, usually from India and Pakistan, manning the ramparts of that
system. That system, of course, has been there since the mid-forties and Britons never know the difference from the one we have here.
I agree with DB this study is one more weapon we can use against those who would replace our system with something that has been proven to be a failure. Perhaps even the ACS should now have second thoughts about their stand.
Gross Anatomy
September 10th, 2003 at 12:55 pm
NHS Isn’t NHI
As a single-payer advocate, there’s nothing that bunches my panties more than confusion between health care systems. I’ve seen it on StudentDoctor, on MedPundit, and now over at MedRants. If for nothing else, please read this and pass it on…
John Anderson
September 10th, 2003 at 1:29 pm
Waiting lists get ridiculous:
*Former Health MP To Wait Almost 2 years for hearing test*
A set of tests that in the US might take a week to set up takes 90 weeks? And his hearing will continue to deteriorate without intervention.