3 ms·

The 5-year survival rate for cancers is much better in the US than Europe. It's what you'd expect for all the money spent, whether it is worth it is unclear. h

The 5-year survival rate for cancers is much better in the US than Europe. It's what you'd expect for all the money spent, whether it is worth it is unclear. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62584/table/ch9.t1/?report=objectonly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62584/table/ch9.t1/?re... For heart attack survival, the US isn't the best, but ranks somewhere in the top 4 depending on the data and criteria. There are a bunch of issues that adversely affect life expectancy in the US not directly related to the health care system. High violent crime rate, much greater dependence on driving cars, standard american diet, opioid crisis (maybe we can blame some of this on the health care system).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tzs 9y ago
> The 5-year survival rate for cancers is much better in the US than Europe. It's what you'd expect for all the money spent, whether it is worth it is unclear. Note that survival rate is measured from when the cancer is diagnosed. For many of those cancers the US screens for them more frequently than they do in the rest of the world. If Alice and Bob both get cancer in 2015 which will kill them in 2021, and Alice lives in a place where they screen for it every year she will survive for 5 years after diagnoses. If Bob lives someplace where they only screen every 4 years and he was last screened in 2014 he will only survive 3 years after diagnoses. Same cancer, same outcome in the same number of years, but Alice counts as a 5 year survivor and Bob does not. Another thing to watch out for when comparing health systems across countries is different definitions. For instance the US generally has a higher infant mortality rate than other western countries, but at least part of that is because of different definitions. For example, a very premature baby with very low birth weight has essentially no chance of survival. In much of the world this would be counted as a stillbirth. In much of the US, however, if it was not actually dead at birth it will be counted as a live birth. Result: a few minutes or hours later, when it actually dies, it is infant mortality in the US statistics and not infant mortality elsewhere. (These definitional differences are not enough to explain the higher infant mortality in the US, but they do close the gap a bit).
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Agree with all you've said, and your point about more screening in the US is another reason costs are higher. Both because more screenings cost more money, and the more stuff you find, the more costly interventions it leads to.
pimmen 9y ago
It becomes much worse for the US when you frame it like this; ”if a given American gets diagnosed with a potentially fatal cancer, what is the chance for survival?” because then if the person can’t afford the therapy they need it looks very dire. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699851/
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Interesting data, but it really doesn't look worse (vis a vis Europe). E.g., the 5 year cancer survival rates for uninsured americans who are diagnosed prostate cancer are still much higher than Europe, and breast cancer is about the same. And given the context of today, 91% of people have insurance. So for a given person in the US, high probability of better 5 year prognosis.
  - pimmen 9y ago
    And in some cancer types the probability of death rises by 198% and becomes 97% without being insured. Prostate and breast cancer are common but they are not the majority of cases alone. And in the context today, a very high proportion of Americans can’t afford parts or all of tgeir cancer treatment costs, in spite of being insured. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23442307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23442307/

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tzs 9y ago

> The 5-year survival rate for cancers is much better in the US than Europe. It's what you'd expect for all the money spent, whether it is worth it is unclear. Note that survival rate is measured from when the cancer is diagnosed. For many of those cancers the US screens for them more frequently than they do in the rest of the world. If Alice and Bob both get cancer in 2015 which will kill them in 2021, and Alice lives in a place where they screen for it every year she will survive for 5 years after diagnoses. If Bob lives someplace where they only screen every 4 years and he was last screened in 2014 he will only survive 3 years after diagnoses. Same cancer, same outcome in the same number of years, but Alice counts as a 5 year survivor and Bob does not. Another thing to watch out for when comparing health systems across countries is different definitions. For instance the US generally has a higher infant mortality rate than other western countries, but at least part of that is because of different definitions. For example, a very premature baby with very low birth weight has essentially no chance of survival. In much of the world this would be counted as a stillbirth. In much of the US, however, if it was not actually dead at birth it will be counted as a live birth. Result: a few minutes or hours later, when it actually dies, it is infant mortality in the US statistics and not infant mortality elsewhere. (These definitional differences are not enough to explain the higher infant mortality in the US, but they do close the gap a bit).

WillPostForFood 9y ago
Agree with all you've said, and your point about more screening in the US is another reason costs are higher. Both because more screenings cost more money, and the more stuff you find, the more costly interventions it leads to.

pimmen 9y ago

It becomes much worse for the US when you frame it like this; ”if a given American gets diagnosed with a potentially fatal cancer, what is the chance for survival?” because then if the person can’t afford the therapy they need it looks very dire. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699851/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699851/

WillPostForFood 9y ago
Interesting data, but it really doesn't look worse (vis a vis Europe). E.g., the 5 year cancer survival rates for uninsured americans who are diagnosed prostate cancer are still much higher than Europe, and breast cancer is about the same. And given the context of today, 91% of people have insurance. So for a given person in the US, high probability of better 5 year prognosis.
- pimmen 9y ago
  And in some cancer types the probability of death rises by 198% and becomes 97% without being insured. Prostate and breast cancer are common but they are not the majority of cases alone. And in the context today, a very high proportion of Americans can’t afford parts or all of tgeir cancer treatment costs, in spite of being insured. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23442307/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23442307/