4 ms·
This really is a matter of what variables you choose to measure. For example, the US is by far the world leader in medical research spending - 44% of global me
by IsaacL 9y ago
This really is a matter of what variables you choose to measure.
For example, the US is by far the world leader in medical research spending - 44% of global medical research is spent in the US. (Until recently it was even higher). [1]
On the same note, many nations regulate the price of prescription drugs - drugs where the initial R&D was done in the states. (Yes, drugs are sold at a huge markup, but that's to recoup the huge initial costs of research). In other words, Americans are taking it in the chin to invest in pharmaceutical innovations, which other countries then treat as a public good.
An additional point that's often obscured: there's no purely capitalistic healthcare system in the world. Even pre-Obamacare, the US system was about 46% funded by the government. (As with the US education system, the availability of government funds has massively pushed up prices). [2]
On a personal note - I'm a brit, but I've lived abroad, and the NHS is one of the reasons I'm considering settling abroad long-term. I simply don't trust the organisation as a whole to take care of my health. If you get assigned a good doctor for your condition, you're OK, but I have my own stories (and I've heard many others) of conditions being ignored or misdiagnosed, even after multiple visits.
In contrast, I went to a hospital in Bangkok that was of far higher quality than the average NHS hospital. (Granted, this was a private hospital, but it puts things into perspective). One Israeli friend said that walking into a UK clinic was like walking into a clinic in a third-world country. It's shabby, the wait is long, the bureaucracy is confusing, etc.
Strange as it may sound, I trust a for-profit entity more with my health, because their livelihood directly depends on taking good care of me. The common argument that healthcare can't be a market because of information asymmetry and doctors being in a position of power doesn't wash: the same holds true for other complex services, like auto repair, and the solution is simple: third party reviews. (On the moral argument, about affordability, I think with a truly private healthcare system entrepreneurs would be able to drive the costs down for people on middle-incomes, and only the bottom 15-20% would be reliant on government or charity spending).
[1] https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/4233/u.s.-slipping-as-global-leader-in-medical-research.aspx https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/4233/u.s.-slipping...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_health_expenditure_covered_by_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_health_ex...
- rlpb 9y ago> This really is a matter of what variables you choose to measure. > > For example, the US is by far the world leader in medical research spending... Medical research companies will naturally gravitate to a country where the medical industry is particularly profitable: for example in a country where citizens pay over the odds for healthcare due to disfunction. If this is the reason that the US spends the most on medical research, is that really something that qualifies as a valid variable for some definition of "best"?
- elmalto 9y agoInteresting thought regarding the r&d spending in the US versus the rest of the world and hence subsidizing global health care. I did look at some numbers in a more recent publication [1](page 21) where the latest r&d numbers for both healthcare and biotech are listed. Germany‘s spending seems to be on average a little less than 1/3 of the US which would make them equal on a per capita level. The UK seems to be a little below those levels. Do you have any data to support your claim? [1] https://www.iriweb.org/sites/default/files/2016GlobalR%26DFundingForecast_2.pdf https://www.iriweb.org/sites/default/files/2016GlobalR%26DFu...
- robocat 9y agoThe UK could easily be more efficient/effective on how they spend their R&D dollars (like for healthcare). And R&D is very hard to compare due to different incentives to categorize R&D depending upon taxation laws and charity institutions.
- dv_dt 9y ago> In other words, Americans are taking it in the chin to invest in pharmaceutical innovations, which other countries then treat as a public good. I completely reject this line of argument. Just because the spending is here, and that a huge profit center is in Ameriica, you can't conclude anything about R&D. A large portion of the marketing spend is also in America too. All the large drug companies are multi-national. Once the income arrives from various nations, that money is fungible within the accounting of the company. One really can't say a pound coming in from the UK isn't funding R&D in America, any more than you could say a dollar is.