3 ms·

Graphs are abused. Graphs are meant to present data clearly and concisely. The most clear and concise presentation method should be used. If it is not, there a

Graphs are abused. Graphs are meant to present data clearly and concisely. The most clear and concise presentation method should be used. If it is not, there are reasons to be skeptical. This graph is not the best presentation imaginable; it's not even mediocre. It is meant to appeal visually to those who already have reached the conclusions it is meant to illicit; it is graph porn. Health care spending and quality is very complex. What about adjusting for relative wealth (not merely the health care spending share of GDP), lifestyles, racial composition (if I am correct, there are biological differences in addition to the obvious socio-economic ones), preferences (how much would you spend for an extra month), etc. Asking questions like why other countries spend less on drugs (does the U.S. subsidize medical research by spending more or is it merely the one that allows rent seeking or both?) After doing so, I believe you will still find evidence suggesting that the U.S. system spends more than it should and there can be clearly identified inefficiencies. That is the distilled information that is interesting -- not the merely manipulative.

ams6110 17y ago
The research question is one that occurred to me. Do these cost data include spending on medical and pharmaceutical research? I would imagine that the bulk of that spending occurs in those same countries that are "above" the average line in this graph, and could contribute to that skewing.
- mtts 17y ago
  Doubtful. Medical and pharmaeutical research is done either by private companies or by universities and such.
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  U.S. patients certainly subsidize drug research. There are frequent calls for re-importation of drugs from other countries because, often, they are identical to the U.S. drugs, but have been bought by foreign governments exercising monopoly purchasing power. It makes sense for the drug company to sell at the discount because the manufacturing cost is so low that it is still profitable. Consequently, U.S. patients, who do not get the monopoly proxy, pay the higher cost. This often leads to accusations of price gouging. However, looking at the returns on investment from publicly listed companies suggests that they are not charging extortionary fees. There financial figures are in line with that of the tech industry. Granted, drug costs only one element among many in the debate, but I am pretty confident in saying that if drug costs were uniform, other countries would be paying more and the U.S. would be paying less (relative to current spending.)

ams6110 17y ago

The research question is one that occurred to me. Do these cost data include spending on medical and pharmaceutical research? I would imagine that the bulk of that spending occurs in those same countries that are "above" the average line in this graph, and could contribute to that skewing.

mtts 17y ago
Doubtful. Medical and pharmaeutical research is done either by private companies or by universities and such.
chasingsparks 17y ago
U.S. patients certainly subsidize drug research. There are frequent calls for re-importation of drugs from other countries because, often, they are identical to the U.S. drugs, but have been bought by foreign governments exercising monopoly purchasing power. It makes sense for the drug company to sell at the discount because the manufacturing cost is so low that it is still profitable. Consequently, U.S. patients, who do not get the monopoly proxy, pay the higher cost. This often leads to accusations of price gouging. However, looking at the returns on investment from publicly listed companies suggests that they are not charging extortionary fees. There financial figures are in line with that of the tech industry. Granted, drug costs only one element among many in the debate, but I am pretty confident in saying that if drug costs were uniform, other countries would be paying more and the U.S. would be paying less (relative to current spending.)