Planning the Patient-Centered Health Plan for America

Current Issue:

Compared to American Health Care

Surprising Facts about American Health Care

Brief Analyses | Health | NCPA | No. 649 | Tuesday, March 24, 2009
by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world.  Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government role in health care.  Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex.  However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America’s health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1:  Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1]  Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.  Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway.  The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2:  Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2]   Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3:  Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3]   Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease.  By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4:  Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

  • Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
  • Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
  • More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
  • Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5:  Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.  Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”[5]

Fact No. 6:  Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long – sometimes more than a year – to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6]  All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7]  In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

Fact No. 7:  People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.  More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”[9]

Fact No. 8:  Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.  When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]

Fact No. 9:  Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.  Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11]   [See the table.]  The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain.  The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]

Fact No. 10:  Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13]   The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14]   Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15]   In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize.   Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16]   [See the table.]

Conclusion.  Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center.  A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.

See more at:

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

Previous Issue:

NHS – The NMS – A new way to obtain new medications?

Q&A about the New Medicine Service (NMS)

If you are prescribed a medicine to treat a long-term condition for the first time, you may be able to get extra help and advice about your medicine from your local pharmacist through a free scheme called the New Medicine Service (NMS).

People often have problems when they start a new medicine. As part of the scheme, the pharmacist will support you over several weeks to use the medicine safely and to best effect.

The service is only available to people using certain medicines. In some cases where there is a problem and a solution cannot be found between you and the pharmacist, you will be referred back to your doctor.

How will I know if I’m eligible?

The service is only available for people living in England, and only for those who have been prescribed a new medicine for the conditions listed:

How do I join the scheme?

When you take your new prescription to your local pharmacy, ask the pharmacist if you can take part in the service.

How does the new service work?

Start your medicine

You can talk to the pharmacist when you first start taking your medicine and ask any questions you may have about it. For example, you might want to know about side effects or how you can fit your treatment around your lifestyle.

Your second appointment

You will have a follow-up appointment two weeks later, when you and your pharmacist can talk about any issues you might have experienced with the medicine. For example, if you are not taking it regularly or are finding a tablet hard to swallow, your pharmacist can help you get back on track and find work with you to find solutions to any issues.

Your third appointment

You will have your last appointment a fortnight later, when you can catch up with your pharmacist again to see how you are getting on. The service then ends, but your pharmacist will always talk to you about your medicines when you need help.

If you are not approved to take it beyond three fortnights, you can always try Chinese witchcraft. But be sure to wipe off those long thin needles with alcohol.

NB: How does it feel to have a pharmacist evaluate you rather than the doctor who prescribed it?

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

British medicine does not give timely access to healthcare, it only gives access to a hazardous waiting list. Now they have Apothecaries interpositioned. But does that make it less hazardous?

Previous Issue:

Americans have more medical rights than Canadian

For a while one could maintain that Americans had more rights in the Canadian health care system than Canadians did. More recently, American members of Toronto professional sports teams were paying for care at Ontario hospitals, jumping the queue by paying for care. A new law outlaws this practice as well. One could even argue that Canadians have fewer rights than their pets. While Canadian pet owners can purchase an MRI scan for their cat or dog, purchasing a scan for themselves is illegal (although more and more human patients are finding legal loopholes, as we shall see below).

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

Government medicine does not give timely access to healthcare, it only gives access to a hazardous waiting list.
In America, everyone has access to HealthCare at all times. No one can be refused by any hospital.

Previous Issue:

Singapore’s Health Care System

A new study shows that Singapore’s health-care system places first when compared with the health-care systems of seven other countries.

Canadian health economist Cynthia Ramsay ranked the health-care systems of Singapore, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Germany, Australia and South Africa. The study uses an index similar to the United Nations Human Development Index and the Fraser Institute Index of Human Progress. An index score, ranging from zero to 100, indicates how a health care system performs relative to others.

  • Quality is measured using such categories as health status, mortality rates, preventable illnesses, appropriateness of services and patient satisfaction.
  • Access to care measures insurance coverage* in a population, equity in health outcomes, how health spending is distributed between acute and other health-care services, and the availability of medical expertise and technology.
  • Cost variables include efficiency and total health spending, and sustainability.

According to the overall rankings Singapore, which relies heavily on private sector financing, has the “best” health-care system with a score of 62.1. Singapore puts much responsibility on patients to finance at least a portion of the costs of their care.

Second-place United Kingdom (60.5), which operates a private system alongside its National Health Service, ranked high largely for its low spending. By contrast, the United States (53.6) ranked just behind Canada (56.7) partially due to its high level of expenditure. Because containing costs is considered beneficial, says Ramsey, “more spending on health is worse than less.”

In addition, the U.S. score likely suffered because using insurance coverage in a population as a measure for “access” fails to take into account the large safety net — such as free medical care that public and private hospitals are required to provide — available to those who do not have private health insurance or do not enroll in a government program.

Source: Cynthia Ramsay, “Beyond the Public-Private Debate: Access, Quality and Cost in the Health-Care Systems of Eight Countries,” Marigold Foundation Ltd., July 2001, 1700-801 6 Avenue, S.W., Calgary, AB T2P 3W2, (403) 303-1804. –

See more at:

Please note that the fallacy of equating insurance coverage and access as discussed in ¶ 7 below.

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

Government medicine does not give timely access to healthcare, it only gives access to a hazardous waiting list.
In America, everyone has access to HealthCare at all times. No one can be refused by any hospital.

Previous Issue:

Putin, Chavez and Castro come out for Obama

By Todd Beamon

Three world leaders known for their anti-American views are endorsing President Barack Obama’s re-election, Fox News reports.

Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, the socialist-leaning leader who won a fourth term this month, reportedly said that Obama was a “good guy.”

Meanwhile, the daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro, Mariela Castro, in June told CNN that, “As a citizen of the world, I would like (Obama) to win.”

She had been speaking in Spanish. The Castro family has ruled Cuba under Communism for over 50 years.

And in Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said Obama’s re-election could improve relations between the nations.

Putin, the former prime minister, also reportedly said the president was a “genuine person” who “really wants to change much for the better.”

But Putin did tell The Wall Street Journal that he could work with Republican challenger Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor had said Russia was the “No. 1 geopolitical foe” of the US.

Putin called the remark “pre-election rhetoric,” Fox reports.
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved
Read more on Report: Obama Backed By World Leaders With Anti-American Views
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

Previous Issue:

From the Stockholm-Network of Think-Tanks

The Stockholm Network is the leading pan-European think tank and market oriented network.


This new section of Gesundheit! explores individual healthcare systems throughout Europe and analyses the landscape for reform. It begins by looking at the United Kingdom and assesses the National Health Service in light of radical proposals for change by the UK coalition government.  Since 1948, patients in the United Kingdom have had free access to the National Health Service (NHS) – a fully public, single payer, universal healthcare system.
Upon its introduction, its chief architect, UK minister of health Aneurin Bevan, argued owerfully that “money ought not to be permitted to stand in the way of obtaining an efficient health service” and thus established the founding principle of the NHS: that it should exist free at the point of use. . .


The NHS is financed through mandatory payroll taxes that are paid by employees, whilst employers also contribute through national insurance payments. All citizens working in the UK are required to make these contributions if they are calculated as earning over a certain level per annum, currently set nationally at around £7,000 upwards for income tax. However, payment of such taxes is not a prerequisite for treatment in the NHS.
In fact, anyone who is a resident in the UK can access NHS services free at the point of use. One of the few exceptions to this, in addition to dental and optometry services outlined above, exists only in England for prescribed pharmaceuticals. English patients in the NHS are sometimes required to pay a fixed co-payment or prescription charge (currently £7.40), although this affects only around 10% of all pharmaceuticals prescribed in the NHS once a host of exemptions are taken into account. . .

Any willing provider

In addition to moving commissioning powers to GPs, the planned reforms of the NHS will also introduce the principle that commissioners should be able to buy services from “any willing provider” so as to create greater competition between services. The idea is to facilitate a greater range of accredited providers, including those from the private sector, as opposed to formal tendering processes that can often restrict competition. . .


In truth, the plans to restructure the NHS are far from finalised and the government has recently decided to pause the legislative process, in the face of a wide range of criticism over their plans. In particular, opposition from key health professionals, such as the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing, has created the impression that reforms are being undertaken without bringing key stakeholders onside.  Furthermore, the promise to increase health spending in real terms until 2015 will also be difficult to maintain given current fiscal constraints and high inflation, although it is likely that this pledge will be honoured even at the expense of other priorities.

Read the entire Stockholm-Network report on the United Kingdom . . .
Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

Government medicine does not give timely access to healthcare, it only gives access to a waiting list.
The radical proposals of the UK appear to be without significant vision.

Past Issue:

NHS breaches target for hospital waits

By Nicholas Timmins, FT, Public Policy Editor

Andrew Lansley’s bad week got no better on Thursday as data showed that the National Health Service in England has breached a pledge that no patient need wait more than 18 weeks for hospital admission, for the first time since the coalition government was elected.

In February 89.8 per cent of patients were admitted for treatment within 18 weeks when the official target is 90 per cent. The average wait for admission has also risen since the election, as have the absolute numbers waiting more than 18 weeks . . .

In February, the latest figures show, only 89.8 per cent were admitted within the target time and more than 39,500 were waiting beyond 18 weeks.

Please respect’s ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts.

Read the entire article in the FT . . .
Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

Government medicine does not give timely access to healthcare, it only gives access to a waiting list.
In America, everyone has access to HealthCare at all times.
How can anyone with an acute appendix or gall bladder wait 18 weeks without dying?

For other issues, please visit our archives