6 ms·
Life-years saved is a step in the right direction, but still the wrong metric to focus on in my opinion. Healthy life-years is a much better metric to optimize
by anonporridge 5y ago
Life-years saved is a step in the right direction, but still the wrong metric to focus on in my opinion.
Healthy life-years is a much better metric to optimize.
If we get people living to 200, but 120 of those years are in a miserable and extremely debilitated state, I consider that a failure compared to average life span of 100, where only 5 years are in an extremely debilitated state. i.e. getting 95 good healthy years + 5 bad ones >>> 80 healthy years and 120 bad ones.
I suppose you can make an argument that extending your miserable years can help a person survive long enough to eventually take advantage of body and mind rejuvenation tech, so there is some point where absolute maximization of life-years might make sense.
- pydry 5y agoThis is QALYS. It's how the UK allocates health care spending. The UK allocates healthcare in a pretty humane, efficient and, ultimately, (whisper it!) communist manner.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThat doesn't sound very communist to me. Moreover, while the British certainly prefer their healthcare system to the American system (and I probably agree), I've never heard them describe their system as efficient (on the contrary, they seem to talk about it as a money pit).
- jfk13 5y agoThe amazing thing is that despite being a money pit, it still manages to deliver better overall value than the US "system".
- throwaway894345 5y agoIt's not really amazing, it's just that not everything is in reference to the US system. When Brits comment about their system being a money pit, they aren't always thinking about the US system as their frame of reference. This seems to be a stumbling block for us Americans, or at least for Americans who are passionate about healthcare reform.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoExperts regularly rate it as one of the most efficient health systems, so whoever you're talking to is ill informed. Probably listened to too much propaganda from people who want to adopt the widely hated and less efficient American system instead.
- DocTomoe 5y agoHm, as a German, I shudder at the thought of potentially being dependant on a system that regularly breaks down during standard influenza waves in the winter [1] and that has fixed-amount budgets for individual sickness [2], so your tooth better splits during the first few months... Is the NHS better than the US system? Maybe. But it is by far inferior to the French, the Spanish or the German healthcare systems. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/24/winter-flu-crisis-hospitals-overstretched https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/24/winter-flu-c... [2] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dentists-run-out-of-cash-for-nhs-patients-vctcl7c8fgn https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dentists-run-out-of-cash-...
- cinntaile 5y agoYou're comparing apples to oranges by using a different metric than the parent is using.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoI was talking specifically about efficiency: > Despite regular criticism, the National Health Service (NHS) is effective when comparing the government spend versus the outcomes of human development and lifespan. While critics point to Switzerland achieving the lowest death rates in Europe, or Germany having a consistently quality health care system, they don’t compare these to the level of expenditure. > In fact, the UK has a higher life expectancy than Germany, with lower health care funding than in other large economies. The Swiss spend $3,079 more on health care per person than the UK, while Germany spends $1,993 more per person than the UK. Critics can’t ignore these massive differences in expenditure when debating the outcomes that the NHS provides. If the UK matched Swiss expenditure per person, an additional $206 billion would be spent on health care annually.
- marcosdumay 5y ago> communist manner I think the word you are looking for is "collectivist".