Slaying some health care myths.

We're back from the Adirondacks, and happy to have an internet connection again! During the time away, I found some interesting information regarding the British and Canadian health care systems. Some of what I found may surprise you. Let's begin with the Brits. Their National Health Service (NHS) is routinely blasted by those who claim that the American system provides the best health care in the world (more on that in a later post).

In an August 3 piece in the NY Times, Uwe. E. Reinhardt points to a famous example: "The most humorous illustration of American N.H.S.-bashing was supplied during the heated health reform discussions in 2009 by Investor’s Business Daily. In an editorial, the paper asserted, “People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the quality of life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Problem is that Hawking is British and has lived in England all his life. Famously suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease, Hawking says that “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.” Oops!

Reinhardt points to a Washington Post column by Ara Darzi--a former British Minister of Health--which gently corrects American misunderstandings about the NHS:

"Every Briton is registered with his or her own family doctor, whom they can see when they need -- without paying a fee. These doctors are independent contractors to the health service and are recognized and rewarded for quality in their compensation -- so they can focus on what works, not just what pays. Expanding on the facilities that are already in place, by next year every community in England will have a physician's office open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day of the year, and you can simply walk in and see a doctor, for free, regardless of whether you are registered." [Emphasis mine.]

What about those long waits we hear about? Darzi says "In the unfortunate instance that a patient is diagnosed with a dire disease, such as cancer, it often takes only a week or two for a patient to be seen by all the right specialists, complete all the required diagnostic tests and be ready for surgery or other interventions. This rivals the best care in the United States or anywhere else in the world."

OK, but you Brits have "death panels"! Darzi says "Many of the mischief-making rumors have focused on our National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the clinically led body, independent of government, that gives advice on the effectiveness of drugs and treatments. Call it fiscal conservatism or old-fashioned common sense, but we think you should pay only for what works." [Emphasis mine.]

Well, you must admit that all of the medical innovation comes from the USA. " ...it should be remembered that Britain's pharmaceutical industry is second only to the United States in its innovation and the significance of its discoveries. The NHS invents and delivers pioneering treatments, from the first clinical use of MRI in the 1960s to leading developments in robotically enabled scar-free surgery today."

Darzi concludes by pointing out that he is not suggesting an American adoption of the NHS: "Standing in defense of Britain's health service does not mean that we believe it is the right prescription for the United States. It is not for us to propose the solution for America, but we hope that correcting the record on some of the facts about our NHS will help Americans evaluate the real strengths and challenges of our system, instead of focusing on the misinformation spread by fear-mongers. Indeed, none of the proposals for reform -- from President Obama or anyone else -- would create a system that resembles that in Britain. What we share across the Atlantic are a set of common values: a belief that health care transcends the narrow confines of consumerism and is a moral right to be secured for all; and fidelity to the principle that a good society brings its citizens together in common purpose, where hope can overcome fear."

"Fear is the weapon of choice for opponents of reform who have no substantive alternative to offer. America spends five times the share of its national wealth on health as Singapore, and yet life expectancy in each country is roughly the same. Even allowing for other factors, it is undeniable that the way a health system is organized and operated makes a difference. Americans fear that countries such as Britain and Canada ration care -- and that such rationing could and should never be tolerated in the United States. Yet 47 million uninsured is quite an extreme form of rationing. So at this moment, the burden of proof falls upon those who oppose change -- for they stand in defense of fear."

Maybe if we stopped being so fearful of the health care systems of other countries--and convinced that any solution to a problem other than "the American way" can't possibly be any good--we might be able to learn some things that could lead to a solution to our health care crisis. 

In the next few weeks, we're going to hear a lot of talk about our national deficit. Getting health care costs to the level  of other advanced nations would solve our entire deficit crisis. It's worth paying attention.

Next up: Actual research explodes some myths about the Canadian health care system.