5 ms·
>And we don't have better outcomes. It's apples and oranges though, yeah? Do we have worse health outcomes after controlling for the health-related demographic
by savanaly 4y ago
>And we don't have better outcomes.
It's apples and oranges though, yeah? Do we have worse health outcomes after controlling for the health-related demographics of our population?
That's like saying I live a ten minute walk from my job in Manhattan's financial district and you live a ten minute walk from your job in New Jersey; I pay more in rent but have the same commuting outcome! Therefore it's the fault of the overpriced sidewalks in Manhattan??
- dumpsterlid 4y ago[dead]
- lostlogin 4y agoIf you ignore those pesky poor people and those that died, the stats look amazing. You realise that comparing countries and the amount they paid is as good as it gets? It’s a direct comparison.
- kashunstva 4y ago> Do we have worse health outcomes after controlling for the health-related demographics of our population? Health outcomes in the U.S. do track socioeconomic and regional factors. But should the system not meet the needs of whomever walks through the clinic door? I mean, some of the difference is not just the direct effects of poverty or social disadvantage on physiologic parameters but also on access to healthcare itself. We can control for socioeconomic factors and make the data look better but it doesn’t entirely exculpate the system which makes it incredibly difficult to get state-of-the-art care if you haven’t got ample resources to gain access.
- wwweston 4y agoWe're talking about other industrialized mixed market democratic nation states. At that level, demographics fade into the background, to the point where it's not even clear that we're talking Granny Smith vs Red Delicious, it's more like Fuji vs Pink Lady. If there's citrus in the basket of fruit under examination, it's policy.