• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Study: Patients 45% more likely to die in UK hospitals than in US hospitals

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 13876

Unconfirmed Member
D

diamount

Banned
Showaddy said:
While I'll agree on operations & prescriptions, physiotherapy under the NHS is absolutely shocking. 1 month waiting times at best in London even if the eventual service is good, Iv'e have to do it privately multiple times because I couldn't afford to be stuck in bed for weeks on end.
Click to expand...

Well, NHS is mostly a free service. Unless you pay NI contributions and medicine if you're over a certain income threshold. But considering it services 60 million people, they do a good enough job. If you want treatment/help faster then there is always the private route as you stated.
 
A

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
Useless metric, look at mortality rates.
It just shows that non-ill people are more likely to enter hospitals in the US, which we can all guess why.
 
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
diamount said:
You continue to show ignorance on things you know absolutely nothing about.
Click to expand...

What did I say that was so wrong? Many other posters have reflected what I have said, that in the US, the cost of care make it so that many do not go to hospital or doctors as often as they should.
 
B

Big-E

Member
Dr.Guru of Peru said:
And pray tell what happened after it took you only two days to get this critically important, limb-saving diagnostic test?
Click to expand...

Exactly I hate when anyone brings up wait times. Wait times are there so that people who don't need something done right away don't clog up the system for people who really need scans done. The notion that Canadians die on the vine waiting for surgery is some of the biggest malarkey about socialized medicine. My dad had to wait a while to get his hips replaced and do you know why? Because every fucking person can get that done here if they need it not unlike some other places.
 
J

JawzPause

Member
Tenks said:
The elderly figure is interesting. Obviously the elderly are a huge drain on socialized medicine. I wonder if the hospitals in the UK see them as a walking liability and don't give them outstanding care where in the USA they are seen as a walking payday and are given every opportunity to extend life. I know when my grandmother was extremely ill she was getting phenomena on a seemingly bi-weekly basis and in the hospital all the time.
Click to expand...
That's actually a really good point which could most likely be true
 
H

hawkshockey11

Banned
CyclopsRock said:
I get the impression that US healthcare is much like US Universities - the breadth and speciality in each is unsurpassed as a whole and it's often the best in the world - if you can afford it. With both hospitals and schools, there will be individual ones outside of the US that are equally exceptional, but in the US there are so, so many of both. But it'll cost ya.
Click to expand...
Correct. The cream of the crop are obviously attracted by the amount of money they would make in the US over other countries. Professors, doctors, etc. This raises salaries and costs across the board. Unfortunately for the majority of situations the absolute best is not always needed.
 
G

GJS

Member
Tenks said:
The elderly figure is interesting. Obviously the elderly are a huge drain on socialized medicine. I wonder if the hospitals in the UK see them as a walking liability and don't give them outstanding care where in the USA they are seen as a walking payday and are given every opportunity to extend life. I know when my grandmother was extremely ill she was getting phenomena on a seemingly bi-weekly basis and in the hospital all the time.
Click to expand...

I didn't see this post before but it's a pretty shitty thing to even think about, UK healthcare professionals are no less professional than Americans. Individual doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals aren't thinking about cost when patients really need something for their treatment.

The elderly population make up the majority of the patients in our hospitals at anyone time, and everyone of them is given all the same opportunities to extend their life. Active treatment is only ever withdrawn after discussion with the patient or their family if they no longer have capacity, and even then it will be restarted if they improve whilst under palliative care. Some of the best wards and teams I've worked on/with in my hospital have been the care of the elderly teams and the Acute Frailty Unit.

Some people have a lot of issues that crop up, and you recognise them time and time and again as they are admitted, and every time they get the best care we can give them.
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
I don't understand why having a large number of people dying in a hospital is a damning statistic, or why it needs to be given such enormous weight. If more people are dying in hospitals, doesn't that mean more people were able to get to the hospital to be possibly treated?
 
D

Dead Man

Member
I don't understand this:
Because of confidentiality issues we are not allowed to name the other countries. But America stands out in the data for its lower mortality rates. So we went to find out why.
Click to expand...
Countries have confidentiality now? Or are the reporters not allowed to discuss it except for America?
 
D

Diablos

Member
Kinyou said:
In W.H.O studies the US ranks pretty low.
Click to expand...
So there you go Republicans and Libertarians, the UK NHS having a fuckton of issues =/= socialized medicine hindering recovery and the general well-being of hospital patients.

Full steam ahead with socialized medicine in all 50 states, to hell with the risks, private insurance having the last word when it comes to medical care is a moral and ethical outrage. I would rather give up some extra safeguards and whatnot in a hospital if I knew that everyone in this country was entitled to the same level of care, not having to worry about going bankrupt while heartless suits in an office miles away figure out the best way to fuck everyone so they can impress shareholders.
 
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
Dax01 said:
I don't understand why having a large number of people dying in a hospital is a damning statistic, or why it needs to be given such enormous weight. If more people are dying in hospitals, doesn't that mean more people were able to get to the hospital to be possibly treated?
Click to expand...

Scare tactic. Makes it easier to defund the NHS which the UK has done with austerity measures.
 
C

CLEEK

Member
The NHS has been underfunded for years. Decades.

The Tories would love nothing more than to make heath care private, but the NHS has such a special place in the heart of the public, they've never had the balls to do it. Instead, they under fund it, leading to long waiting lists for treatment, removal of services, reduced staffing etc.

Even under Labour, the NHS didn't have the funding it needed. With an ever ageing population, the cost to provide free healthcare increases.

Since I've moved to Australia, I find the health care system here far better than the NHS. You have a public system (Medicare), which provides free care to anyone. But also a private system, paid for my individuals having private health insurance.

High earners get taxed with a Medicare levy is you they don't have private insurance, so it is often cost effective to have insurance (plus you get the obvious benefits to private care, with faster access to treatment). This reduces the strain on the public system, which is far better funded than the NHS in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia
 
Z

zhorkat

Member
Dax01 said:
I don't understand why having a large number of people dying in a hospital is a damning statistic, or why it needs to be given such enormous weight. If more people are dying in hospitals, doesn't that mean more people were able to get to the hospital to be possibly treated?
Click to expand...

It could simply be a result of more people going to hospitals, or it could be a result of poor hospital practices that could be fixed.
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Azih said:
That's an odd metric. Couldn't it be caused by US hospitals kicking old sick people out of their hospital beds (they still die anyway, just at home) and not due to better care?

Edit: Beaten by others on this, but it's just such an odd stat.
Click to expand...
That's what I was thinking too, as well as the fact that wealthier people are in us hospitals, and we wealthy people have a better chance of surviving anything.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
SPE said:
The NHS has been underfunded for years. Decades.

The Tories would love nothing more than to make heath care private, but the NHS has such a special place in the heart of the public, they've never had the balls to do it. Instead, they under fund it, leading to long waiting lists for treatment, removal of services, reduced staffing etc.

Even under Labour, the NHS didn't have the funding it needed. With an ever ageing population, the cost to provide free healthcare increases.

Since I've moved to Australia, I find the health care system here far better than the NHS. You have a public system (Medicare), which provides free care to anyone. But also a private system, paid for my individuals having private health insurance.

High earners get taxed with a Medicare levy is you they don't have private insurance, so it is often cost effective to have insurance (plus you get the obvious benefits to private care, with faster access to treatment). This reduces the strain on the public system, which is far better funded than the NHS in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia
Click to expand...

If we could get dental care under medicare I think we would have a pretty good system.
 
A

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
GaimeGuy said:
According to sources cited in wikipedia, 4% of all deaths in England and Wales occur in hospice. in the US, it's roughly 33% (the vast majority of which is provided at home..


The number of deaths that occur in a hospital setting seems like such an odd metric to use and devoid of any meaning other than as a talking point about the dangers of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
If someone is deemed for hospice, why waste money on them? Isn't this still something to consider especially a care system interested in effective low cost care?
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Vane_MagicCity said:
It is common knowledge but I don't think it's true. The WHO rated health care in the US at 38.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

Feel free to disagree with the WHO if you like but let's not pretend that the US is number 1, that would be an unbelievable jump.
Click to expand...

Correct. I believe I saw something like the US infant mortality rate is MUCH higher than in countries with socialized medicine, since mothers without coverage or with terrible coverage end up getting the worst kind of delivery possible.

edit: yup.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/07/1973341/us-infant-mortality-rate/

Each year, about one million infants around the world die on the same day they’re born. That figure includes about 11,300 U.S. babies — the highest first-day infant mortality rate of any other country in the industrialized world, according to a new report from Save the Children. In fact, the United States’ rate of first-day infant death is 50 percent more than all the other industrialized countries in the report combined.

Many babies who die at birth were born too early, and others suffer infections or complications at birth. Many of those infants could be actually be saved with fairly cheap medical interventions, the advocacy group says. The first day of life is the most dangerous day for mothers and babies, but expanding access to several products that cost under $6 each — bag-and-mask devices to help babies breathe, antiseptic to prevent umbilical cord infections, antibiotics to treat infections, and steroids to delay pre-term labor — could help save an estimated one million infants around the world.
Click to expand...

report also notes our teen pregnancy rate is shockingly high as well. One could thank abstinence only education AND lack of access to female contraceptives as well.
 
V

Visualante2

Member
My grandad is choosing to die in hospital at their suggestion, he thinks he'll be more comfortable and doesn't want to burden my gran.
 
M

Monty Mole

Member
JordanKZ said:
Aaannd what about all the US citizens that die at home because they can't afford to go to hospital? I should suspect that'll bring the figures down...
Click to expand...
This does need to be taken in to consideration. Also private healthcare exists in the UK too. NHS isn't the only option, but at least it is an option available to everyone.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Durask said:
You are joking, right.

Many top hospitals in the US are located in very bad neighbourhoods.
Johns Hopkins is a good example.
Click to expand...

where they are located isn't the point. unless you're shot and looking to get into the emergency room, that doesn't help you.

Things hospitals are ACTUALLY for, like preventative care, and long term treatment of chronic and hard to treat illnesses are off limits to the uninsured at hospitals like johns hopkins.
 
D

Durask

Member
Vane_MagicCity said:
It is common knowledge but I don't think it's true. The WHO rated health care in the US at 38.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

Feel free to disagree with the WHO if you like but let's not pretend that the US is number 1, that would be an unbelievable jump.
Click to expand...

1) It was a study from 2000 - like, 13 years ago.

2) Their criteria were arbitrary. US got marked down simply because it does not have universal healthcare coverage.

3) Data from some countries was made u... sorry I mean extrapolated - which explains Colombia ranked higher than Sweden, Germany or Canada. Just that particular fact should have been the clue that the proper way to deal with this study is:

simpsons_nelson_haha.gif
 
D

Durask

Member
Manmademan said:
where they are located isn't the point. unless you're shot and looking to get into the emergency room, that doesn't help you.

Things hospitals are ACTUALLY for, like preventative care, and long term treatment of chronic and hard to treat illnesses are off limits to the uninsured at hospitals like johns hopkins.
Click to expand...

Er, hospitals are for acute care and for surgeries. Most other stuff best done in clinic setting.

Also, most teaching hospitals have huge Medicaid populations and also provide insane amounts of free care to the uninsured. Now, granted, for many people especially people with mental health issues even walking to an office and filling out a form for free care is an unsurmountable obstacle but that's another story.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Much of America's low(er) ranking comes from our terrible ranking in pre-term births. We have a higher rate of pre-term births than any other Western country. Which, in turn, skews our infant mortality rate. Much of that comes the deep south, where access to health care is awful. Especially for the poor and minorities.

I don't really believe in full socialized health care, but we should have fully socialized preventative care. That would be a great first step (and less costly).


http://www.marchofdimes.com/mission/prematurity-reportcard.aspx
 
C

CLEEK

Member
ToxicAdam said:
I don't really believe in full socialized health care
Click to expand...

I know asking this to an American is a loaded question, but why?

All other moralistic reasons aside, funding healthcare via taxes is significantly more cost effective than through private payment. The cost of US health care in mind boggling.
 
W

WARCOCK

Banned
ToxicAdam said:
Much of America's low(er) ranking comes from our terrible ranking in pre-term births. We have a higher rate of pre-term births than any other Western country. Which, in turn, skews our infant mortality rate. Much of that comes the deep south, where access to health care is awful. Especially for the poor and minorities.

I don't really believe in full socialized health care, but we should have fully socialized preventative care. That would be a great first step (and less costly).


http://www.marchofdimes.com/mission/prematurity-reportcard.aspx
Click to expand...

Why not? it seems to be working everywhere else pretty damn well. Set aside ideology and let pragmatism do its work. I mean of course it won't work here because our system is too fragmented and there are too many different institutions trying to get the most out for themselves. So yeah i'll grant you it's not the solution for the US at the moment, but don't believe in it... is the rest of the western world not enough evidence......
 
D

Durask

Member
Miles Quaritch said:
Why is America doing better?

Because of confidentiality issues we are not allowed to name the other countries. But America stands out in the data for its lower mortality rates. So we went to find out why.

At the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona, they are in the best two per cent in the country. It is an impressive hospital, with piano music playing in the lobby and sunshine streaming into the rooms.

And around the hospital are signs extolling their ethos: the patient comes first. To this end they have introduced a number of safety systems, including a check and recheck system between the pathology labs and the operating theatres.

For years they have had multi-disciplinary team rounds in which everyone from the consultant to the physio, from the nutritionist to the social worker is involved in the care of that patient.

It means better communication. Everyone is treated as an important part of the team, rather than deferring, in the traditional way, to the consultant.

Professor Richard Zimmerman, a neurosurgeon at the Mayo Clinic Hospital, acknowledges that this can be labour intensive with a dozen or more people involved in each round for each patient, but he said it is cost efficient in the end.

"It is less expensive than having a lot of deaths and having admissions that last longer because you don't do it right the first time," he said.

Nevertheless, critics will say that it is difficult to compare the American hospitals with the NHS and it is true that in the US more money is spent on equipment, drugs, staffing levels. And it has an expensive, much-criticised insurance-based healthcare system.

And yet, American hospitals results are better. They have more per staff per patient, for instance. But what stood out at the Mayo was the attitude to mistakes or near misses. Staff are actively encouraged to report these. Whistleblowers are welcomed. Because they do not want these mistakes repeated.

"If you go to the States doctors can talk about problems, nurses can raise problems and listen to patient complaints," Professor Jarman said.

"We have a system whereby for written hospital complaints only one in 375 is actually formally investigated. That is appalling, absolutely appalling."
Click to expand...


It seems to me that better hospitals in the US do better because they have a system of team based care which does go against the lone wolf mentality of old school doctors and I think produces better results.

Also good read here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande

So it may be that poor results in UK hospitals result from bad and outdated culture of health care delivery and not source of funding. Something to ponder.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Shocking figures, but its pretty disingenous to portray the Mayo Clinic as a typical American hospital. The quality of hospitals vary greater in the US and the Mayo clinic is the best, or at least in the top 5, hospital in the country

Durask said:
1) It was a study from 2000 - like, 13 years ago.

2) Their criteria were arbitrary. US got marked down simply because it does not have universal healthcare coverage.

3) Data from some countries was made u... sorry I mean extrapolated - which explains Colombia ranked higher than Sweden, Germany or Canada. Just that particular fact should have been the clue that the proper way to deal with this study is:
Click to expand...


Uhh... People not having access to health care is a pretty big deal. I mean, who gives a shit about the quality of health care if you don't have access to it?
 
C

CLEEK

Member
I think (under) staffing plays a big part in the NHS, and is probably the key reason.

My wife is a nurse. When we left the UK 11 years ago, in the NHS wards there would be 8-10 patients per nurse. On night shifts, this could nearly double with 10-15. Far higher then recommended, but due to reduced numbers of nurses due to under funding.

When we moved to Australia, she started off in a public system hospital, and the patient to nurse ratio was rarely above 5:1 during the day, and not much more at night. When she changed jobs and worked at a private hospital, she had 3 patients assigned to her per shift.

The Royal College of Nursing in the UK has stated that 7 patients per nurse should be the maximum, but still hospitals are looking to cut staff levels due to budget cuts, so this is very unlikely to happen.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
Wait hold up, they compared the United Kingdom to Mayo Clinic and not United States in general?

Piecake said:
Uhh... People not having access to health care is a pretty big deal. I mean, who gives a shit about the quality of health care if you don't have access to it?
Click to expand...

Not to mention that pretty much every other ranking system places the United States incredibly low.
 
P

Piecake

Member
zero shift said:
Wait hold up, they compared the United Kingdom to Mayo Clinic and not United States in general?



Not to mention that pretty much every other ranking system places the United States incredibly low.
Click to expand...

No, the figures are for the entire US. the example of the hospital they used for the US was the Mayo Clinic though, which I think is pretty absurd
 
B

Boom Boom Pow

Banned
wait, are some of the people in here arguing that in the US, if someone is facing a severe medical emergency, they'd rather stay at home than go the ER?

You kidding me? Do you even have statistics to back up such thinking?

One of the main reason why healthcare is so expensiev in the US anyway is becauseo f those people who have no insurance that had to go to the ER to get life-saving treatment, and then they can't pay for it, so that cost is spread to the rest of us.

No one is dying in their home because they can't afford it. Now, they might go into bankruptcy cuz they can't afford it after they get saved, but honestly...the amoutn of spin people try to put up
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Read the entire thing, never saw "people actually go to the hospital in the UK versus the US where people are afraid of being in debt slavery for the rest of their life" being accounted for.

I live in the US. There is a hospital in this city that we vastly prefer to go to. Then there is the hospital where they take you to die.

The second one is not the county hospital.
 
B

Boom Boom Pow

Banned
Aylinato said:
Where's my free healthcare, my free food, my free housing, and my free college???

O, that's right...because that's completely made up.
Click to expand...

Actually, no it's not. If you're poor, say, below a certain threshold, i forgot what it is, you get the following:

Healthcare: Medical (in CAlifornia at least). This means that any child under 18 in a household gets Medical, which is basically free insurance.

Food: Foodstamp.

Housing: Section 8. The government subsidizes your housing for you or you can stay in a subsidize apartment.

College: Pell grant, Cal Grant A, Cal Grant B, SMART Grant, Subsidize Loan. These 5 grants are enough to pay $10k in free money, and give you an interest free loan for the next 4 years of college.

How do i know all this? Cuz i was poor once and my family received all of the above. Btw, the above only applies when the parents have under 18 kids living with them

the poster is right though. THere are a lot of services to help people in poverty range. It's just the middle class that's just barely above poverty that is getting screwed.

Ether_Snake said:
How many don't go to a US hospital at all because they can't afford it, and die as a result?

You know how 99.99999999999% of patients would be more likely to die in UK hospitals than in US hospitals? If it cost a million dollar per visit to a US hospital.
Click to expand...

this is probably a joke, considering hospitals in the US will not reject you if you come without insurance. They'll treat you and save your life, then bill you afterward. Not ask to bill you beforehand. THat's where the issue that's causing high health cost. People getting their lives saved without insurance
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
How many don't go to a US hospital at all because they can't afford it, and die as a result?

You know how 99.99999999999% of patients would be more likely to die in UK hospitals than in US hospitals? If it cost a million dollar per visit to a US hospital.
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
Indrid Cold1 said:
Dat socialised healthcare
Click to expand...

this study should probably also assess the mortality rates in the rest of the first world before you Americans get all lofty with 'you see that communists?!'

it's possible the brits are just terrible at running a fundamentally sound system.

It's also possible that poor sick people tend to die in hospitals in UK where as poor sick people tend to die under a wet cardboard box next to a dumpster in the US.

Still pretty surprising news for the UK health system, I'd always heard it was good to great.
 
C

CLEEK

Member
catfish said:
Still pretty surprising news for the UK health system, I'd always heard it was good to great.
Click to expand...

The WHO rank the NHS above the US when considering all metrics. But the glorification of the NHS is strange to the British who are used to it being grossly underfunded for decades. Every election, reducing NHS waiting lists and access the services are major political points of debate. A Conservative government always means the NHS gets budget cuts. This time around with 'austerity', the cuts have been especially severe.

The NHS has one obvious point in its favour over anything in the US: it's free. I doubt anyone in the UK would be surprised you can get better healthcare in private hospitals in other countries (or even private hospitals in the UK).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

India: Why a nation of 1.45 billion wants more children
31
2K
Lukaku's First Touch replied
  • Locked
Doctors on a leading "transgender healthcare body" have admitted that patients have developed cancer + more
2
51
5K
Embearded replied
[Reuters] More than a billion people worldwide are obese, WHO study finds
News 2 3
125
6K
Mistake replied
US National Toxicology Program Report: High levels of fluoride exposure linked to lower IQ in children
2 3
148
6K
EverydayBeast replied
PSSR Could Potentially Be More Important Than Direct Increase in GPU Power – Dying Light: The Beast Dev
News Game Dev Platform 2 3
143
7K
PaintTinJr replied
Top Bottom