Canada inches toward private medicine

[cdl42]

Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns

Just got back from Britain which has a mixed public/private heath system. It was front page news in the papers about how waiting lists are forcing patients to leave the country to seek treatment.

 

[building babel]

Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns

My old Aunt Dorothy in England went private for her first hip replacement a few years ago. Her second hip was replaced eventually too, but she died a few hours after the operation.

I believe they gave Uncle Don a modest refund.

 

[ganjavih]

Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns

The only valid argument for introducing a parallel private system in Canada is that people should have the right to purchase private health care. The claim that it will improve the system has no basis.

 

[ganjavih]

Re: U.S. health-care system `insane,' Clinton warns

Study: Canadians Healthier Than Americans

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"That is according to a survey in which American and Canadian adults were asked over the telephone about their health."
"It is based on a telephone survey of about 3,500 Canadians and 5,200 U.S. residents in 2002-03."

It's perfectly possible that Americans are more often aggressively diagnosed with stuff so the health care system there can rake in more profits. Wouldn't hospital figures be more realistic? Or look at how much insulin is consumed per capita or whatever. Americans are also chattier so they may be more likely to admit to having diseases over the phone.

 

[ganjavih]

It's perfectly possible that Americans are more often aggressively diagnosed with stuff so the health care system there can rake in more profits.

That's possible.

Wouldn't hospital figures be more realistic?

No. If you want to find out the prevalence of a certain condition such as high blood pressure in the general population, you have to ask the general population.

Or look at how much insulin is consumed per capita or whatever.

What information would that give you?

Americans are also chattier so they may be more likely to admit to having diseases over the phone.

I don't know how the study was designed, but if it was a simple "do you have diabetes, yes or no" question, it doesn't matter how chatty you are.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"What information would that give you?

Now, I'm not a doctor like you and most health info I have I pick up from ER or random internet sites, but I just don't have a lot of faith in the accuracy of polls like these. Instead of asking a few thousand people whether or not they have diabetes (especially since there must be untold millions spent on collecting and crunching health data like this), looking at how much insulin is sold or consumed in each country might be a better indication of the rough difference in prevalence of diabetes, although you wouldn't end up with such a wonderfully exact figure as 42%.

I don't doubt that Canadians are probably healthier than Americans, although the two health care systems only explain part of the difference. If Americans had our health care system (or we had thiers) do you think their and our health would converge to the same level?

"I don't know how the study was designed, but if it was a simple "do you have diabetes, yes or no" question, it doesn't matter how chatty you are."

You're assuming everyone's telling the truth...chattier people might be more willing to open up and be honest to strangers. On the other hand, they may be more willing to lie. I lie all the time on phone polls...I wonder if Canadians or Americans lie more often.

 

[afransen TO]

Why lie to pollsters? It serves no one.

 

[ganjavih]

I just don't have a lot of faith in the accuracy of polls like these.

It's really the only way I can think of to find out the prevalence of a condition in the general population. If you only look at hospitals, you'd be studying the prevalence in hospitals which could be different than prevalence in the general population.

Instead of asking a few thousand people whether or not they have diabetes (especially since there must be untold millions spent on collecting and crunching health data like this), looking at how much insulin is sold or consumed in each country might be a better indication of the rough difference in prevalence of diabetes, although you wouldn't end up with such a wonderfully exact figure as 42%.

That wouldn't work for a few reasons. First, different people consume different amounts of insulin depending on the severity of their disease. Second, insulin is only one possible treatment for diabetes, there are many others. Third, insulin has uses other than for the treatment of diabetes.

I don't doubt that Canadians are probably healthier than Americans, although the two health care systems only explain part of the difference. If Americans had our health care system (or we had thiers) do you think their and our health would converge to the same level?

No, there are probably other factors such as physical activity, diet, and other lifestyle issues.

You're assuming everyone's telling the truth...chattier people might be more willing to open up and be honest to strangers. On the other hand, they may be more willing to lie. I lie all the time on phone polls...I wonder if Canadians or Americans lie more often.

Perhaps, but I'd be willing to bet there isn't a statistically significant difference in lying rates between the two countries. No study is perfect but this is a reasonable assumption.

 

[blixa442]

It's perfectly possible that Americans are more often aggressively diagnosed with stuff so the health care system there can rake in more profits.

That is a good point. Appearently those areas that have the lowest birth rates in the US have the highest incidence of caeserian sections.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"It's really the only way I can think of to find out the prevalence of a condition in the general population. If you only look at hospitals, you'd be studying the prevalence in hospitals which could be different than prevalence in the general population."

Wouldn't virtually everyone with diabetes be treated at some point by a doctor or hospital? They can't record the number of people that are treated? I just think that, even with its flaws, this would be a better way than asking a few thousand people over the phone.

 

[ganjavih]

But prevalence is the percent occurrence within a population. To find out information about the general population, your study sample has to represent the general population, ie. random phone interviews across the country. If you look at hospital charts from a single hospital, your conclusions would only be applicable to that given population, ie. the people within that particular hospital's catchment area. ie. if I find 2000 diabetic charts at the Sudbury Regional Hospital, I could deduce that the prevalence of diabetes in the Sudbury area in 2000 divided by the population of Sudbury or 2000/150,000 or 1.3%. This would assume that all diabetics in the Sudbury region get treated at the Sudbury Regional Hospital which is not necessarily true. I wouldn't be able to say that the prevalence of diabetes in Canada is 1.3% because I haven't proven that. Of course, you could look at every chart in every hospital in the country and divide by the population of Canada, but that would be enormously expensive and take ages to do. OK, that's enough statistics for today...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"Of course, you could look at every chart in every hospital in the country and divide by the population of Canada, but that would be enormously expensive and take ages to do."

I am assuming they do stuff like this automatically. If they don't, then phone polls are an acceptable method, but I'll still take the results with a grain of salt.

 

[gboykovekin]

^Don't take it with too much salt.

 

[ganjavih]

I am assuming they do stuff like this automatically.

Unfortunately, not yet. Most charts are still paper charts (eventually to be electronic) and I can tell you that going through them is a royal pain in the arse.