Opponents of universal care often cite awful stories of Canadians and Brits hurt, killed, or dead of neglect or bad care. And there’s no doubt that people in Canada and Britain are the victims of poor medical care.
There is certainly some truth to the stories of bad Canadian and British medicine. It is also true that raising this issue doesn’t help make the case against universal health insurance.
News flash – American patients often suffer pain, injury, or death from bad medicine. Here are a few examples. California hospitals recently disclosed hundreds of medical errors, “including wrong-organ surgeries, administration of incorrect drugs and neglect of serious medical conditions. This is a small percentage when weighed against the 4 million hospital admissions that occur in California each year, but still serious…” (quote from FierceHealthcare citation).
In Pennsylvania, wrong-site surgeries happen often – very often.
Nationally, between 48,000 and 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors. More people are killed by bad medicine than die in auto accidents or succumb to breast cancer.
A report on medical errors in the US blamed the system. Our system, one that does not offer universal coverage. According to the Institute of Medicine‘s 2000 report; “most of the medical errors are systems related and not attributable to individual negligence or misconduct. The key to reducing medical errors is to focus on improving the systems of delivering care and not to blame individuals. Health care professionals are simply human and, like everyone else, they make mistakes. But research has shown that system improvements can reduce the error rates and improve the quality of health care.”
(I’d note that the IOM is a universally respected, highly regarded organization, unlike the agenda-driven think tanks typically cited by opponents of universal coverage).
Let’s not forget the people without health insurance who die as a result of poor access to health care – late diagnosis of cancer, poor preventive care, and untreated hypertension, cardiovascular disease, asthma and diabetes.
And in the “did they even think about this before they wrote it” category comes this gem from biggovhealth.com; “Since 1997, the U.S. has made further improvements to the quality and accessibility of our health care, including the creation of Medicare Part D.”
Uhh, folks, Part D is a government-run drug program that has resulted in many seniors getting access to pharmaceuticals, thereby potentially improving their health. Kind of like what universal coverage aims to do.
Contrasting the IOM’s estimate that there are 18,000 excess deaths in America among uninsured adults to the anecdotal examples of poor care in Canada and Britain provides a much clearer picture of the ‘dangers’ of universal medicine. A picture of kids getting health screens, diabetics getting insulin, asthmatics receiving education and primary care, expectant mothers getting pre-natal care, and high-risk women getting mammograms.
Now that’s a scary world.
Jul
1
To be sure the US system has it’s faults and I agree that better efforts need to be taken to improve the delivery of care. What I think is missed here in your analysis is the size of these systems.
Great Britain, with a current population of 60,766,238 (per Google) is significantly smaller than the USA with 301,139,947. Likewise with Canada at only 33,390,141. Comparing the level of these type injuries to these other socialized systems of healthcare is fallacious at best.
Additionally, if the “Universal Healthcare” afforded in Great Britain and Canada are so exemplary, why then are we seeing a boon in the development of the Medical Tourism industry? Why are we seeing Canadians coming to the USA for their healthcare? Why are we seeing British going to India and Thailand for their care? Surely if these systems were so far above the U.S. system there would be no need for this new developing market.
Let’s look at the same numbers as percentages of the population and I think you will find the market driven systems we have in operation in the USA are functioning at a higher levels of care, in fact we are setting the standard for healthcare worldwide.
In considering Universal Healthcare we must not discard the good in favor of the bad.
“It is also true that raising this issue doesn’t help make the case against universal health insurance.”
As usual, Joe, you’ve missed the point. The reason I and others highlight the problems with Canadian and British health care is to show that “universal health care” isn’t the panacea you and others make it out to be.
Dorrence- welcome back. You claim I am directly comparing the UK and the US in terms of medical errors per capita. I made no such comparison. My post illustrates there are two sides to this story and the inherent problems with the US system are not discussed by those opposing universal coverage.
You claim the market driven system will compare favorably yet provide no facts or data to support that position.
Dorrence I’ve asked you repeatedly to cite sources and not merely spew mindless talking points. I repeat that request.
Catron- nowhere have I claimed that universal coverae is a panacea. My point, which you appear to have missed yourself, is that every health system has issues and problems. And for those withou tinsurance those problems often include highermorbidity and mortality rates than occur in the insured population, a situation that would very likely improve under universal coverage.
Paduda
I’m no expert on the medical system, but I am an expert patient and I fail to see what’s so much better about the U.S. After weeks of a mysterious illness (which turned out to be severe food poisoning), I was rushed to St. John’s Hospital (Santa Monica CA) with my organs in shut down mode. I was kept in the waiting room almost 8 hours. I was later told I was hours from death. Another time I was rushed by ambulance to South Bay Hospital (Torrance, CA) (even though my doctor was waiting at UCLA) with what was thought to be a ruptured appendix but turned out to be tumors on my intestines that were never detected despite nearly a year of tests. Again, it was a 5 hour wait when time was of the essence. A dear friend was mis-diagnosed for a year by Kaiser Permanente – told she had hemorrhoids. She was eventually found to have late-stage colorectal cancer. She had to wait almost 3 months for “emergency” surgery. She died 6 months later. Had they properly diagnosed her earlier, she may still be alive. And today, the local TV news in L.A. told a horrific story of a patient kept waiting in a hospital waiting room nearly 24 hours. She finally died, slumped onto the floor and was ignored by security guards, orderlies, nurses and even a doctor who stepped over her and even kicked her before someone finally came to check on her and found she’d been dead for hours – all recorded on security cameras. So how exactly is our system better than the UK or Canada? Please enlighten me.
Joe,
Once again when challenged on ANY position, you must revert to calling names. I don’t appreciate being called “mindless” sir! I made no such reference to you in my comment, nor do I have to be the one to “Prove” my point to you.
You made the proposition in your posting, I merely am stating that the comparison needs to be made at a per-capita level to either prove or disprove your position. We all (obviously) know that you were not making that comparison. It is not my place to “cite sources” in this instance.
Joe, although we fairly regularly disagree, I do respect your positions and appreciate your blog and your raising these discussions. Please do not take my retorts personally.
Dorrence- your comment said making comparisons was ‘fallacious’. I responded that I was not making any such comparison. You need to be more clear with your comments as any reasonable person would assume your characterization referred to the post.
If you want to debate or disagree and be taken seriously you have to cite sources. A failure to do so leaves readers to assume you are not speaking from knowledge but from opinion. I make the effort to do my homework. I expect those who disagree or opine to do the same