Is the US Healthcare System Responsible for Low Longevity Ranking?

[Christopher]

There still seems to be much confusion about this question, based upon the threads created recently in this forum. Here is a study, which I have provided several times in this forum which answers the question "no". Here is a quote:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

I would ask that any of you who believe the healthcare system in the US is responsible for our low ranking, please provide your evidence. Keep in mind that this research paper has a 7 1/2 page list of credible references to back up the information presented.

 

[Joe Steel]

There still seems to be much confusion about this question, based upon the threads created recently in this forum. Here is a study, which I have provided several times in this forum which answers the question "no". Here is a quote:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

I would ask that any of you who believe the healthcare system in the US is responsible for our low ranking, please provide your evidence. Keep in mind that this research paper has a 7 1/2 page list of credible references to back up the information presented.

Why bother? They're just a couple of cherry-pickers. Anyone can make a case for anything if he uses only friendly data.

 

[Christopher]

There still seems to be much confusion about this question, based upon the threads created recently in this forum. Here is a study, which I have provided several times in this forum which answers the question "no". Here is a quote:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.

I would ask that any of you who believe the healthcare system in the US is responsible for our low ranking, please provide your evidence. Keep in mind that this research paper has a 7 1/2 page list of credible references to back up the information presented.

Why bother? They're just a couple of cherry-pickers. Anyone can make a case for anything if he uses only friendly data.

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence to dispute it. Since you are making the claim of "cherry-picking", please prove it.

 

[Mr Natural]

Bad diets, inactivity, and a stressed-out lifestyle are what are responsible for our low ranking.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pro-active preventive medicine not only reduces the mortality rate in the young, but the lack of debilitating disease in the young, allows them to live to healthier, long old ages.

However, most low paying entry level jobs do not have health insurance, so the children of the people in those jobs do not see doctors until later in life when their parents work up to better jobs. But the damage has already been done.

Our ineffectual, far too expensive health care sytem is reflecting not only in our longevity data, but also in infant mortality, and early childhood deaths.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Nope. We did it to ourselves.

 

[Vortex]

Bad diets and, inactivity are what are responsible for our low ranking.

Fixed.

 

[Mr Natural]

Bad diets and, inactivity are what are responsible for our low ranking.

Fixed.

Are you suggesting that stress is not a factor in an unhealthy lifestyle?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nope. We did it to ourselves.

Damned right we did. Every other sane nation has a form of universal health care.
We do not. We have done it to ourselves. The ignorant and very wealthy have kept health care off the table every since Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bad diets and, inactivity are what are responsible for our low ranking.

Fixed.

Are you suggesting that stress is not a factor in an unhealthy lifestyle?

Let's see. Our very wealthy people have all but destroyed the capitalistic system in this nation with their greed. They have created a situation where all too many people are losing their jobs, and their health care with the jobs. Then on spell of sickness, and they have lost their homes.

So we have the new class of homeless people, the formerly middle class, nuclear family.

Now how much do you thing that the role of a for profit health care system is playing in the stress on the American Citizen?

 

[Joe Steel]

Why bother? They're just a couple of cherry-pickers. Anyone can make a case for anything if he uses only friendly data.

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence to dispute it. Since you are making the claim of "cherry-picking", please prove it.

Prove it? Just read the article. The authors don't accept the WHO ranking based on aggregates but say if we ignore this and include only that, we're Number 1. That's pretty much the definition of cherry-picking.

 

[Sodafin]

To answer the question - yes, it is.

Finns have terrible problems with alcohol, we have problems with obesity and diabetes, and yet Finns live 3 or 4 years longer than Americans.

The answer to me has to be linked to the fact that any Finn can see a doctor when they need one, without having to max out the credit cards.

 

[Care4all]

I believe our lifestyle does contribute, but I also believe that if healthcare was affordable, even for the lower middle class, we would be healthier as a country. We would have doctors advising their patients that their lifestyle is killing them and lifestyles would change.

Also, if one gets in to the habit of visiting the Doctor at least once a year for their wellness visit, and had tests done that are recommended for their risk or age, then problems would be found earlier and prognosis would be better than if they found their illnesses later in life. HOW can anyone DISCOUNT this?

It may cost us upfront for these at minimum, yearly visits, but it would save us in the long run to have these illnesses treated when in an early stage verses paying out the yin yang for them, once the people without insurance reach Medicare age, where we are paying nearly the entire bill.

 

[Sodafin]

Also, if one gets in to the habit of visiting the Doctor at least once a year for their wellness visit, and had tests done that are recommended for their risk or age, then problems would be found earlier and prognosis would be better than if they found their illnesses later in life. HOW can anyone DISCOUNT this?

.

Absolutely - this is a very key point.

If everyone in the US could have their skin, breasts and/or prostate checked every 2 years - your cancer survival stats would surge dramatically.

But for that to happen, it needs to be either free or extremely cheap.

 

[Joe Steel]

To answer the question - yes, it is.

Finns have terrible problems with alcohol, we have problems with obesity and diabetes, and yet Finns live 3 or 4 years longer than Americans.

The answer to me has to be linked to the fact that any Finn can see a doctor when they need one, without having to max out the credit cards.

The implications of your comment suggest a national health care system has to deal with the problems it encounters. I agree. The US has certain problems and the American system is failing to address them.

 

[Mr Natural]

Also, if one gets in to the habit of visiting the Doctor at least once a year for their wellness visit, and had tests done that are recommended for their risk or age, then problems would be found earlier and prognosis would be better than if they found their illnesses later in life. HOW can anyone DISCOUNT this?

.

Absolutely - this is a very key point.

If everyone in the US could have their skin, breasts and/or prostate checked every 2 years - your cancer survival stats would surge dramatically.

But for that to happen, it needs to be either free or extremely cheap.

You forgot to mention convenient. It has to be convenient. A two o'clock appointment should mean two o'clock plus or minus 15 minutes or so.

 

[Care4all]

A couple of things could be bringing stats down compared to other EU countries though...(Our black population is greater here, and black people tend to live shorter lives due to illnesses like heart disease etc.

And, because we do have many that can not afford insurance or have insurance but just don't utilize it with regular visits as they should.)

And those who do live, live longer lives I would bet, than other countries...those here that have had good health care most of their lives, such as my parents...my father has had 3 different types of cancer, but all of them caught early and is 70 something going on 50 something...I now look at the 70's as still being quite young....my mother in law passed on at 87-her own mother at 97, my grandmother about the same age and my grandfather was in to his 90's before passing on.

Our Health care-Doctors, tests, drugs, technology and research and development in the medical field is second to NONE, in the entire world.

Affordability is the problem for some....

we do have the best health care, money can buy.

 

[Sodafin]

I imagine the US system is at least the equal to the Finnish system, and possibly slightly superior in some aspects, but only for those with access to GOOD insurance.

I just really don't see that a country can boast about having an excellent water network if only 80% of homes have access to fresh water.

The measure of any basic function; such as health, education, water, electricity or roading; has to be access. If 30 million Americans can not have their skin checked for melanomas quickly, easily and cheaply - then the system fails.

 

[Christopher]

Pro-active preventive medicine not only reduces the mortality rate in the young, but the lack of debilitating disease in the young, allows them to live to healthier, long old ages.

However, most low paying entry level jobs do not have health insurance, so the children of the people in those jobs do not see doctors until later in life when their parents work up to better jobs. But the damage has already been done.

Our ineffectual, far too expensive health care sytem is reflecting not only in our longevity data, but also in infant mortality, and early childhood deaths.

Source please.

 

[Christopher]

Why bother? They're just a couple of cherry-pickers. Anyone can make a case for anything if he uses only friendly data.

In other words, you cannot provide any evidence to dispute it. Since you are making the claim of "cherry-picking", please prove it.

Prove it? Just read the article. The authors don't accept the WHO ranking based on aggregates but say if we ignore this and include only that, we're Number 1. That's pretty much the definition of cherry-picking.

This is what the study actually said about the WHO ranking. It was discussed that people often draw the wrong conclusion about the US ranking, that it is the fault of the health care system. They did just the opposite of “cherry picking” in this study and researched deeper into the statistics and the reasons for these statistics. I think they actually cared enough about what the true reasons are for any problems with our health care system; enough to determine the root causes of the problems. Yet, you call them “cherry picking”. Where is the study you base your opinion about the reason or main reasons for our low longevity ranking? I would be interested to read it.

Analysts often juxtapose the poor ranking of the United States in life expectancy and the very high percentage of its gross national product that is spent on health care. In 2007, the United States spent 16% of its GDP on health care, by far the highest fraction of any country (Congressional Budget Office 2007). The conclusion that is often drawn from this combination is that the United States’ health care system is extremely inefficient (e.g., Anderson and Frogner 2008).

But measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system – the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individual’s health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols.
The health care system could be performing exceptionally well in identifying and administering treatment for various diseases, but a country could still have poor measured health if personal health care practices were unusually deleterious. This is not a remote possibility in the United States, which had the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita in the developed world over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80’s (Forey et al. 2002). Smoking in early life has left an imprint on mortality patterns that remains visible as cohorts age (Preston and Wang 2006; Haldorsen and Grimsrud 1999). One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD 2 countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009). Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).