4 ms·
True, I wouldn't be surprised if the US was amongst the lead in quality of medical procedures - when that procedure is necessary... but beyond administration, t
by tomxor 4y ago
True, I wouldn't be surprised if the US was amongst the lead in quality of medical procedures - when that procedure is necessary... but beyond administration, there have been numerous instances of doctors being exposed for electing patients for unnecessary procedures driven by profits, and other procedures being recommended when scientific evidence suggest the procedure has no clear benefit - no matter the quality of surgery, it always comes at significant risk and cost to your body, it's not a magic wand; it's a traumatic intervention that requires your body to go through a lot of recovery with possible lasting effects. This can be true to a lesser extent for less severe medical interventions too.
So my point is, what use is excellent "care" if not only it's life endingly expensive, but it's also prescribed immorally to the point of actually causing harm!
- robocat 4y agoOne measurement for medical intervention is caesarean births versus natural births by mother’s age, which hugely jumped in the states in the 2000’s: https://www.statista.com/statistics/206438/us-cesarean-delivery-rates-by-age-of-mother/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/206438/us-cesarean-deliv... (although rates are highly influenced by consumer demand?). Chance of caesarean jumped in percent from ≈⅔age to ≈age (e.g. ≈20% for 20 year old). High variation between states, although some of that might be state demographics of mothers: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cesarean_births/cesareans.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cesarean_births/ce... And a comparison against caesarean rates in OECD, which can be higher rate of caesarean per birth: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283123/cesarean-sections-in-oecd-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/283123/cesarean-sections...