It should be amazing that the following is not discussed more often. It is a meaningful, and perhaps the most meaningful measure of "quality of healthcare." Too often "life span" is a measure, but convenience has to be more relevant measure.
In addition I often hear "16% of GDP is too much to spend on healthcare!" Too much for whom? By what measure? What is the appropriate amount? Is 16% too much of a spend for flat screen TVs or electronics? What about transportation? Education? -- Blank out. No Answer, just ignore the obvious question. No questions from our journalistic 'watchdog' media.
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71%
England 14%
Canada 18%
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
Reaping What You Sow
-
The economic policies that the Obama Administration has implemented through
legislation, and countenanced by appointing Timothy "Weak Dollar" Geithner
t...
14 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment