4 ms·

Since cancer and cardiovascular disease are by far thelargest killers, early detection coupled with survival rates would be the two most important factors with

Since cancer and cardiovascular disease are by far thelargest killers, early detection coupled with survival rates would be the two most important factors with cost the third. Narrow the problem down to something much more measurable than most comparisons attempt.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Aren't early detection and survival rates somewhat linked? I've heard it suggested that one of the dysfunctions of the US system is to detect cancers that would never have caused the patient any harm, leading to stress and needless medical interventions and expense. This improves both your metrics without actually improving healthcare, possibly actively making it worse, even before accounting for cost.
- DanBC 9y ago
  It's true that over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment all cause harm (and sometimes death). But have a look at "most common cause of female death" here: https://visual.ons.gov.uk/causes-of-death-over-100-years/ https://visual.ons.gov.uk/causes-of-death-over-100-years/ Cancer is the most common cause of death in women from age 30 to 79, and also from age 5 to 14. (Brain tumors in children, breast cancer from age 30 to 54, and lung cancer from 55 to 79). Advances in cancer detection (including working out which are the cancers that need to be treated) and treatment are going to save lives.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Those figures might be slightly misleading e.g. the most common cause of death might only account for 7% of deaths at certain age ranges and the same time and money invested into other causes may provide more bang for buck. Also which particular cause of death "wins" may be more about taxonomy decisions about what gets lumped together (e.g. for the very youngest "other misc." is the biggest grouping) and, as a result, I would guess that any deaths due to e.g. an unnecessary mastectomy of a potentially benign tumor leading to surgical complications would end up listed under the same cause of death as one left entirely untreated. So advances will save lives only if they're truly advances, and not just throwing shiny technology at the problem without a full understanding of the benefits and costs.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Aren't early detection and survival rates somewhat linked? I've heard it suggested that one of the dysfunctions of the US system is to detect cancers that would never have caused the patient any harm, leading to stress and needless medical interventions and expense. This improves both your metrics without actually improving healthcare, possibly actively making it worse, even before accounting for cost.

DanBC 9y ago
It's true that over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment all cause harm (and sometimes death). But have a look at "most common cause of female death" here: https://visual.ons.gov.uk/causes-of-death-over-100-years/ https://visual.ons.gov.uk/causes-of-death-over-100-years/ Cancer is the most common cause of death in women from age 30 to 79, and also from age 5 to 14. (Brain tumors in children, breast cancer from age 30 to 54, and lung cancer from 55 to 79). Advances in cancer detection (including working out which are the cancers that need to be treated) and treatment are going to save lives.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Those figures might be slightly misleading e.g. the most common cause of death might only account for 7% of deaths at certain age ranges and the same time and money invested into other causes may provide more bang for buck. Also which particular cause of death "wins" may be more about taxonomy decisions about what gets lumped together (e.g. for the very youngest "other misc." is the biggest grouping) and, as a result, I would guess that any deaths due to e.g. an unnecessary mastectomy of a potentially benign tumor leading to surgical complications would end up listed under the same cause of death as one left entirely untreated. So advances will save lives only if they're truly advances, and not just throwing shiny technology at the problem without a full understanding of the benefits and costs.