Thursday, January 11, 2007

Day or night he'll be there any time at all, Doctor Robert

It was brought up in comments that the US seems to prioritize access to healthcare services more than countries with national systems. It doesn't translate into higher life expectancy, and we have a particularly high infant mortality rate, but what about overall satisfaction? We're good at that, right? Not so much. From the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:
Public’s satisfaction with health care system, seventeen countries, 1999-2000
Country Percent satisfied with system
Austria 83
France 78
Belgium 77
Denmark 76
Finland 74
Netherlands 73
Luxembourg 72
Sweden 59
U. K. 56
Germany 50
Ireland 48
Spain 48
Canada 46
U.S.A. 40
Italy 26
Portugal 24
Greece 19

To quote my great-grandparents: For this you pay twice as much? To be as satisfied as Southern Europe? You must be meshuggeneh.

Anyway, there is a class of Americans who aren't so dissatisfied with their healthcare. From Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly's blog Political Animal, commenting on the numbers above:
It takes a bit of interpolation to extract all the numbers, but that's not hard to do. So with that in mind, here are the percentages of Americans who say they are "fairly or very satisfied" with their own health system:
  • Poor: 45%

  • Elderly: 61%

  • Everyone else: 34%

This is pretty remarkable. First, the elderly in America, who are covered by a state-run national healthcare system (Medicare and Medicaid) are way more satisfied with their healthcare than everyone else. As it happens, the elderly in other countries also tend to report higher satisfaction levels than other people, but usually by just a few percentage points. In America, where the elderly are covered by a national system and others aren't, the elderly are more satisfied by a whopping 27 percentage points.

Second, even the poor are more satisfied with their healthcare than the rest of us. The poor generally rely on a combination of Medicaid, emergency rooms, and free clinics for their healthcare, a system that's hard to beat for sheer inefficiency and appalling service. But even at that, the rest of us, who are mostly covered by employer-provided health insurance, are less satisfied than the poor. The system of health coverage provided to the vast majority of American citizens is so bad that we like it even less than the jury-rigged system the poor are forced to use.


Similarly, the VA system typically ranks higher in satisfaction than private care. To recap, we pay twice as much to be half as satisfied with private insurance, and only those currently in the national systems seem to like it.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course statistics lie (and cheat and steal in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington), but to compound the discussion, alongside the countries are the infant mortality rate (in deaths per 1000 live births) and per capita governmental (all levels) spending on health care (in $1000's). Draw what conclusions you will:

Austria 4.6 2.3
France 4.2 2.9
Belgium
Denmark 4.5 2.8
Finland 3.5 2.1
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Sweden 2.8 2.7
U. K. 5.1 2.4
Germany 4.1 3.0
Ireland 5.3 2.5
Spain 4.4 1.9
Canada 4.7 3.0
U.S.A. 6.4 5.7
Italy 5.8 2.3
Portugal 5.0 1.8
Greece 5.4 2.0

Clearly the above data doesn't take into account the effects of immigration on infant mortality (although I'm certain the Bush administration and its friends would use reducing infant mortality as an argument for cutting off immigration if they thought of it) and the expenditures speak more to expectations, but the comparison of the two does send a shiver down the spine.

By the say the infant mortality figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau, International Report and the expenditure data from the 2006 Human Development Report of the United Nations.

jfaberuiuc said...

This reminds me in some ways of the great vacation debate, only much worse. America has a higher per capita GDP than most of Europe, almost entirely because we work more hours at a comparably productive rate. Some countries in Europe, though, manage the same standards as us even though they work less. In both cases, we seem to have our priorities fundamentally backwards, but really like it that way, for reasons that elude me.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting. The percentage of United States Patents granted to non-US entities is creeping up. Ten years ago it was 40% now it is running at 48%. A look (at the 2005 statistics, although they are exemplary) shows who is getting the most patents in the U.S.:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION 2941

CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA 1829

HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P. 1790

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. 1688

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 1641

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 1561

INTEL CORPORATION 1549

HITACHI, LTD 1271

TOSHIBA CORPORATION 1258

FUJITSU LIMITED 1154
1135

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 904

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION 884

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG 787

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. 763

ROBERT BOSCH GMBH 756

If you want to see where, by technology, the U.S. and foreign companies are most active, you can go to: http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/tecstc/classes.htm
but be forewarned, the results may scare you. We may work longer, as hard as others elsewhere, but on a per capita basis we are being outinvented on a daily basis. But we can take solace that in the past 5 years the only patent issuing on whips and whip apparatus was to a U.S. Inventor, and we lead the world during that period in patents for knots and knot tying by a 30 to 8 margin.

jfaberuiuc said...

I guess we can thank the band Devo and E. Annie Proulx (Shipping News) for our technical domination of those two industries, respectively...

alexis said...

hrm, I live in the NL now, but I'm not 35% happier.

jfaberuiuc said...

In a country where they consume so much mayonnaise, yet live until 80 years old on average, the health system has to be doing something right....

 

Website and photos, unless otherwise indicated: Copyright 2006-7, by the authors

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

This website, and all contents, are licensed under the “creative commons attribution, non-commercial, share alike” license. This means, essentially, that you may copy and modify any of these materials for your own use, or for educational purposes. You can freely copy them and distribute them to others. The only rules are that you must attribute the work to the original authors, use them in a non-commercial way, and pass along these rights to everyone else.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors, not anyone nor anything else. Word.