Look at the rankings you just posted–Cuba ranks #1 in cancer survival rates in 3 out of 6 cancers listed. You believe that? You think Castro offers up scientifically derived data to international agencies/think tanks/whatever that might demonstrate his country’s poor health statistics? Who’s checking up on Cuba’s submitted data?
And then Commonwealth relies on the already debunked data from WHO on OECD countries that laughingly puts the US at 37th in infant mortality and some bottom rank for life expectancy. But, guess what? Each country’s health ministers submits their own data based upon their own definition of “infant”–some countries do not include babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth–the U.S. does. Life expectancy data is worthless if it does not factor in trauma and homicide among other lifestyle factors.
And take a look at how Commonwealth derives their rankings ( from the Executive Summary in the link above)
“The most notable way the U.S. differs from other countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage.5 Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health insurance systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their long-term “medical home.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the U.S. substantially underperforms other countries on measures of access to care and equity in health care between populations with above-average and below-average incomes.
With the inclusion of physician survey data in the analysis, it is also apparent that the U.S. is lagging in adoption of information technology and national policies that promote quality improvement.”
Got that? Commonwealth docks the US health performance because it doesn’t offer universal health care. No, no agenda there. Nothing about survival rates, patient satisfaction, timeliness of health care rendered–areas that the US does exceed.
Here’s how Commonwealth defined and measured “Quality”:
“Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: right (or effective) care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other five countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive care, a dimension of “right care.” However, its low scores on chronic care management and safe, coordinated, and patient-centered care pull its overall quality score down.”
Notice “right” care, “safe” care, “coordinated” care and “patient-centered” care are all constructs open to debate as to their definition and supporting data unlike “survival” rates where the data is cut and dried–alive or dead.
Much of the hogwash medical “research” being put out by the organizations are nothing but propaganda in support of socialized health care.
