3 ms·

>By comparative metrics to the rest of the world the NHS comes out either top or pretty damn good. Ish. The NHS is remarkably cost-effective, but has relativel

>By comparative metrics to the rest of the world the NHS comes out either top or pretty damn good. Ish. The NHS is remarkably cost-effective, but has relatively poor survival rates for cancer, stroke and myocardial infarction. International comparisons seem to damn the NHS with faint praise - it's cheap and the patients are happy, but it's not very good at keeping people alive. http://www.qualitywatch.org.uk/sites/files/qualitywatch/field/field_document/QW%20International%20comparisons%20%28final%29_disclaimer_update.pdf http://www.qualitywatch.org.uk/sites/files/qualitywatch/fiel...

PoachedSausage 9y ago
Having only quickly skimmed that document, I couldn't see anything about taking into account the effects of patient age. The NHS is facing massive demand by elderly patients who presumably have lower survival rates for various ailments. They should be going into nursing care, but that has not kept up with demand.
cstross 9y ago
A chunk of the poor cancer survival is down to cultural issues — British men in particular being socialized to not complain, so they don't go to their primary point of care until it's too late to do anything beyond palliative care. This is slowly changing, but it's generational. National-level screening initiatives also help: for example the Scottish NHS's national bowel cancer screening program. But when NHS England is facing real-terms cuts in spending, new long-term preventative stuff doesn't get rolled out.
Marazan 9y ago
Cancer survival rates are suprisingly tricky to measure. If I'm diagnosed with an incurable cancer 5 years before it kills me Vs diagnosed 3 months before hand then scenario 1 looks better in the cancer stats but scenario 2 is better for my peace of mind and probably avoid me having to have a bunch of superfluous medical procedures over the 5 years.
PaulRobinson 9y ago
Survival rates for all those things are affected by external factors that are not in the NHS' control. Smoking, drinking and obesity are all higher in the UK than in many other Western countries, and therefore the types and severity of these issues are likely incomparable. Compound this with the cultural differences of the NHS (you don't go for a six-month check-up unless you're elderly, you just see a doctor when you're already ill), and the fact spending has been prioritised towards other areas (particularly paediatrics), you start to see a different story. But there's also the fact the median age of the UK is relatively high. It's so good at keeping alive in younger years they get older and then develop cancer, stroke and heart disease/attacks later in life where they might be less survivable. We all have to die of something. The NHS can't prevent that. What it can do is stop you having a lot of those issues earlier in life as in other countries and therefore the quality of life is improved. If you want to see an area where it's proper shit, I would not start there: go with dental work, look at obesity prevention, etc. - that's where it's really lagging behind many other countries.
DanBC 9y ago
In 2011 life expectancy in the US was 78.8 years, which was below the OECD average of 80.1 years. The UK's was 81.1 years.

PoachedSausage 9y ago

Having only quickly skimmed that document, I couldn't see anything about taking into account the effects of patient age. The NHS is facing massive demand by elderly patients who presumably have lower survival rates for various ailments. They should be going into nursing care, but that has not kept up with demand.

cstross 9y ago

A chunk of the poor cancer survival is down to cultural issues — British men in particular being socialized to not complain, so they don't go to their primary point of care until it's too late to do anything beyond palliative care. This is slowly changing, but it's generational. National-level screening initiatives also help: for example the Scottish NHS's national bowel cancer screening program. But when NHS England is facing real-terms cuts in spending, new long-term preventative stuff doesn't get rolled out.

Marazan 9y ago

Cancer survival rates are suprisingly tricky to measure. If I'm diagnosed with an incurable cancer 5 years before it kills me Vs diagnosed 3 months before hand then scenario 1 looks better in the cancer stats but scenario 2 is better for my peace of mind and probably avoid me having to have a bunch of superfluous medical procedures over the 5 years.

PaulRobinson 9y ago

Survival rates for all those things are affected by external factors that are not in the NHS' control. Smoking, drinking and obesity are all higher in the UK than in many other Western countries, and therefore the types and severity of these issues are likely incomparable. Compound this with the cultural differences of the NHS (you don't go for a six-month check-up unless you're elderly, you just see a doctor when you're already ill), and the fact spending has been prioritised towards other areas (particularly paediatrics), you start to see a different story. But there's also the fact the median age of the UK is relatively high. It's so good at keeping alive in younger years they get older and then develop cancer, stroke and heart disease/attacks later in life where they might be less survivable. We all have to die of something. The NHS can't prevent that. What it can do is stop you having a lot of those issues earlier in life as in other countries and therefore the quality of life is improved. If you want to see an area where it's proper shit, I would not start there: go with dental work, look at obesity prevention, etc. - that's where it's really lagging behind many other countries.

DanBC 9y ago

In 2011 life expectancy in the US was 78.8 years, which was below the OECD average of 80.1 years. The UK's was 81.1 years.