3 ms·

Damn lies and statistics - it's very difficult to compare countries on Infant Mortality because they have different definitions of alive. From wikipedia: The

Damn lies and statistics - it's very difficult to compare countries on Infant Mortality because they have different definitions of alive. From wikipedia: The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.[24] In Germany and Australia, requirements for live birth are even higher.[25][26] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality Not to say there aren't problems with the US healthcare system, but we need to stop these comparisons that are just not relevant.

ewoodrich 13y ago
From your article: "However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[34][35][dead link][36] The report concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[36]" Your argument, will perhaps partially correct, fails to properly explain the disparity in infant mortality (mostly due to unnecessary premature births) between the US and similar industrial countries.
- dantheman 13y ago
  Yes it doesn't explain it away, there are other problems too that aren't related to health care: More teenage pregnancies (higher likely hood of low birth weight), more single mother pregnancies, more obese pregnancies). These are underlying cultural issues that while related to healthcare are different. In no way am I trying to blame the victim or excuse a bad system. I'm only pointing out that these comparisons are very hard to do correctly and can be misleading. We have an urge to compare so that we can make better decisions, but it can be tough to do this. From the stats originally posted it could be argued that we need to spend more money on the healthcare system, when in reality we just need to educate people to wait to have kids. Researchers from the NCHS found that low birthweight and short gestational age births—a leading cause of infant death internationally were more common in the United States than in Europe. Although outcomes for these births were similar, they found that the U.S. rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births was double that of Finland and Sweden.29 After adjusting for potential recording differences by excluding very short gestational age births, they found that the U.S. IMR would be 3.9 if the United States had the same rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births as Sweden. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41378.pdf
krrrh 13y ago
In addition, if you limit the data to single child births, eliminating twins and other multiple births, the US actually ranks number one for child mortality. Multiple child births are inherently more risky, as are births to women over the age of 30. Due to wealth, cultural, and lifestyle factors the number of multiple-child pregnancies in the US is much much higher than in other countries. More American women choose to have children later in life and sometimes this includes fertility drugs which results in more riskier twin pregnancies. When you remove car accidents and suicides from the death rates, factors that are largely independent from the health care system, the US actually has the highest life expectancy in the world. A good source of info on this is the work of Scott Atlas. This econtalk includes a good look at the statistical biases in the micro rankings that get so much undue attention in the media. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  I am not sure that suicide rates are particularly independent of health care provision, especially suicides in the elderly, which is where there has been a massive increase.

ewoodrich 13y ago

From your article: "However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report that stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries. It also outlined the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[34][35][dead link][36] The report concluded, however, that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.[36]" Your argument, will perhaps partially correct, fails to properly explain the disparity in infant mortality (mostly due to unnecessary premature births) between the US and similar industrial countries.

dantheman 13y ago
Yes it doesn't explain it away, there are other problems too that aren't related to health care: More teenage pregnancies (higher likely hood of low birth weight), more single mother pregnancies, more obese pregnancies). These are underlying cultural issues that while related to healthcare are different. In no way am I trying to blame the victim or excuse a bad system. I'm only pointing out that these comparisons are very hard to do correctly and can be misleading. We have an urge to compare so that we can make better decisions, but it can be tough to do this. From the stats originally posted it could be argued that we need to spend more money on the healthcare system, when in reality we just need to educate people to wait to have kids. Researchers from the NCHS found that low birthweight and short gestational age births—a leading cause of infant death internationally were more common in the United States than in Europe. Although outcomes for these births were similar, they found that the U.S. rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births was double that of Finland and Sweden.29 After adjusting for potential recording differences by excluding very short gestational age births, they found that the U.S. IMR would be 3.9 if the United States had the same rate of low birthweight and short gestational age births as Sweden. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41378.pdf

krrrh 13y ago

In addition, if you limit the data to single child births, eliminating twins and other multiple births, the US actually ranks number one for child mortality. Multiple child births are inherently more risky, as are births to women over the age of 30. Due to wealth, cultural, and lifestyle factors the number of multiple-child pregnancies in the US is much much higher than in other countries. More American women choose to have children later in life and sometimes this includes fertility drugs which results in more riskier twin pregnancies. When you remove car accidents and suicides from the death rates, factors that are largely independent from the health care system, the US actually has the highest life expectancy in the world. A good source of info on this is the work of Scott Atlas. This econtalk includes a good look at the statistical biases in the micro rankings that get so much undue attention in the media. http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html

moocowduckquack 13y ago
I am not sure that suicide rates are particularly independent of health care provision, especially suicides in the elderly, which is where there has been a massive increase.