3 ms·

> So we pay more money then other countries but > don't get better outcomes? Yes, exactly. > Could we save money and get the same outcomes? That seems like a

> So we pay more money then other countries but > don't get better outcomes? Yes, exactly. > Could we save money and get the same outcomes? That seems like an obvious corollary of the above... But yes, I think we could. > And since we get worse outcomes then they do Not necessarily worse; just not better. Measuring and comparing outcomes across different populations is hard enough that it's hard to say more than "our outcomes are not clearly better than theirs". > could we spend less and still get better outcomes? This question is based on a premise which doesn't seem to be true, so probably no. > How do you defined "more health care?" Number of procedures per capita per year for various procedures is a reasonable measurement (where procedures can be MRIs, surgeries of various sorts, etc, etc). Usually people focus on the expensive end of this, by the way; having more physical checkups won't necessarily blow up your healthcare costs the way that more invasive cancer surgeries will.

dalke 16y ago
Your logic works both ways. If you say it's hard to measure then how do you know that get the same outcomes? "Number of procedures per capita per year" is a horrible measure. It assumes that procedures done is a good proxy for overall health, which it isn't. Public health (clean food and water, trash pickup, promoting exercise and outside activities, cutting down on smoking, etc) is also important. Here's a scenario. Country A and B are identical except that country A has pushed for potable water and B has not. As a result, 10% of the procedures in country B are from dysentery, cholera, and other water-borne diseases which are relatively cheap to treat (keep hydrated with a solution of salts and sugar). As a result, country B has more doctor visits per capita, and on average these costs are cheaper than in country A. Country B also has lower life-expectancy, more days sick per year, and other measurable outcomes. By your definition, country B has the better health care system but I think most people would prefer the overall health of country A. Therefore your measurement is not so useful as an indicator of overall health outcomes.
- bzbarsky 16y ago
  > It assumes that procedures done is a good > proxy for overall health My whole point is that it's not a good proxy for overall health. However it _is_ a good proxy for amount of money spent on the system. Which is how you can end up spending more but not getting better overall health. Do read what I said again. You're arguing against a strawman. Which

dalke 16y ago

Your logic works both ways. If you say it's hard to measure then how do you know that get the same outcomes? "Number of procedures per capita per year" is a horrible measure. It assumes that procedures done is a good proxy for overall health, which it isn't. Public health (clean food and water, trash pickup, promoting exercise and outside activities, cutting down on smoking, etc) is also important. Here's a scenario. Country A and B are identical except that country A has pushed for potable water and B has not. As a result, 10% of the procedures in country B are from dysentery, cholera, and other water-borne diseases which are relatively cheap to treat (keep hydrated with a solution of salts and sugar). As a result, country B has more doctor visits per capita, and on average these costs are cheaper than in country A. Country B also has lower life-expectancy, more days sick per year, and other measurable outcomes. By your definition, country B has the better health care system but I think most people would prefer the overall health of country A. Therefore your measurement is not so useful as an indicator of overall health outcomes.

bzbarsky 16y ago
> It assumes that procedures done is a good > proxy for overall health My whole point is that it's not a good proxy for overall health. However it _is_ a good proxy for amount of money spent on the system. Which is how you can end up spending more but not getting better overall health. Do read what I said again. You're arguing against a strawman. Which