One of the excellent aspects of the current American health care system is that most people can get immediate help if they become very ill. Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–months that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying.
I decided to do a little research on cancer survival rates, and it turns out USA is # 1. From the fact sheet put out in 07 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:
According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology :
- American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.]
- American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
- Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
- For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.
But what about Canada, Wesley? Canada is the ideal of single payer health care:
Canada’s system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O’Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada:
- For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
- For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
Early diagnosis is the key, which gets us to the crucial screening issue:
It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government.
* In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
* The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.
This is a very important aspect of the current debate. Reform is necessary to increase access of our uninsured to these very services. But destroying what works for the vast majority of Americans to accommodate the needs of the few–when that matter could be corrected with a far less draconian approach–must not be allowed to succeed.
July 21st, 2009 | 6:04 pm
Just wanted to say thank you so much for all these articles on the dangers of universal health care. Keep ‘em coming.
Was wondering if you could have your web-masters put on a “share” button for your posts, so we can post them to places like Facebook. Thanks!!
July 22nd, 2009 | 11:59 am
Heather (July 21), the information in this article is extremely misleading. In the U.S. there are a lot of praises about surviving cancer. The other countries prevent the cancer from occurring in the first place. Take a look at this information about minimizing deaths due to preventable diseases among 19 countries:
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Real_People
Regards, Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate
July 22nd, 2009 | 1:43 pm
From the Organization’s own website: “The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA’s goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.” That is to say, they have an agenda that leads one to question the objectivity of their “fact sheet.” Has anyone actually read the entire survey that was published in “Lancet” or are readers depending on NCPA’s interpretation of it? Do we have any statistics concerning the frequency and severity of various cancers in European countries and Canada, vs. the US? To what does “Lancet” attribute the difference in survival rates? Correlation is not cause-and-effect.
July 22nd, 2009 | 1:53 pm
HW: Why don’t you do that research and let us know?
July 22nd, 2009 | 3:42 pm
Well, Wesley, you see, I’m not the one who’s touting the report in an attempt to bolster my argument. You’re the one who cited it. Shall we assume that, by your asking me to do the research, you haven’t done it yourself? Matter of fact, I’d be curious to know if you’ve ever made that remark to a judge who questioned one of your citations in a brief …hmmmmm? If it will help, however, I’ll be glad to try accessing the “Lancet” article and reading it for you.
July 22nd, 2009 | 4:00 pm
Wesley:
It took all of five minutes to find the abstract of the article (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(08)70179-7/abstract) and to note that it makes no mention in its findings of any correlation of cancer survival with national health care systems. That, apparently, was NCPA’s bit of “spin.” I’m not about to pay for the privilege of reading the entire journal. Suffice it to say, there’s enough information in the abstract to make the NCPA “fact sheet” suspect.
July 23rd, 2009 | 11:52 am
“and to note that it makes no mention in its findings of any correlation of cancer survival with national health care systems.”
Er, all that tells me is that the Lancet decided not to draw any of the obvious conclusions, probably due to their own biases. Why does the NCPA taking the data and comparing it to the health care systems make it automatically suspect? That makes no sense. They have the survival rates by country. They know what kind of health care system each country has. They compared. What, we can’t use the data for any comparisons unless the Lancet did so first? Why?
Qwinn
July 23rd, 2009 | 11:55 am
Incidentally, the WHO regularly produces studies on the world’s “best” health care systems, and invariably socialist countries come out on top. This just -might- be related to the fact that two of their top criteria for how good a given health care system is effectively boil down to “How socialist is their health care?”
That would tend to indicate a rather massive partisan bias. Somehow, though, when people tout the WHO reports to support socialized health care, no one notices that little bit of partisan bias. It’s the strangest thing.
Qwinn
July 23rd, 2009 | 4:38 pm
Bob: “In the U.S. there are a lot of praises about surviving cancer. The other countries prevent the cancer from occurring in the first place.”
And what makes you think that simply adopting their laws will produce the same result here?
Even the best French bakeries in Manhattan have a hard time making pastry as good as you get in any ordinary corner shop in Paris. They have great bakers using the same recipes but they can’t get the same kinds of yeast, flour, sugar, and even the water and ovens they use are somewhat different. Bakers and recipes are important but the result is the sum of a lot more parts.
Chances are that Americans will maintain all of their unhealthy lifestyle choices no matter whose name is on their insurance policy, while the known failings of single-payer systems will stay just as bad here. So you will end up with the worst of both systems.
July 23rd, 2009 | 5:28 pm
[...] Things shreds Obama’s claim that other countries have better outcomes. Tom Shales at the WaPo gushes [...]
July 23rd, 2009 | 9:40 pm
The conclusion drawn in the Lancet article is that outcome depends upon income. That certainly makes sense. The US spends more per capita on doctors than any other country on earth. The real question is, do we get real value (or only a 3-4% difference) for our money?
July 23rd, 2009 | 9:44 pm
[...] believe it? Screenings are NOT better in countries with universal healthcare Secondhand Smoke ? A First Things Blog [...]
July 23rd, 2009 | 11:19 pm
[...] believe it? Screenings are better in countries without universal healthcare Secondhand Smoke ? A First Things Blog [...]
July 24th, 2009 | 3:32 am
Another example of manipulating statistics to try to make your point. You aren’t doing your argument any good.
The way the health care systems in Europe work is different than in the US. For example, in Holland, doctors (and the State) only offer PAP smears every five years as opposed to the standard of every year in the US. You can ask for one and pay for it privately but the insurance companies only cover it every five years (unless they suspect you need it more) and the State offers it free of charge. In the US, you have the right to get one every year IF you have the insurance to pay for it. Otherwise, you have to pay out of pocket anyway. So different diagnostic practices but still no one goes away without healthcare unlike the US.
July 24th, 2009 | 3:34 am
I have one question for the genious that wants universal health care. Please explain why tens of thousands of people every year come to America for health care from countries with univeral health care. The answer is obvious! The care in those countries suck.
July 24th, 2009 | 10:00 am
[...] Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada – FirstThings.com [...]
July 24th, 2009 | 12:09 pm
jb: I have a question for you. Don’t you have Spell-Check on your computer?
July 24th, 2009 | 1:21 pm
[...] Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada Posted at July 24, 2009 Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada [...]
July 24th, 2009 | 7:10 pm
HistoryWriter…one question…would we be breaking the laws of physics if we tried to get you off your high horse?
Obamacare = Rationing, price fixing, limited drug option choices (gotta control costs), a decline in the development and investment into drug technologies (which translates into a loss of ‘preventative’ care Bob), a massive takeover of private wealth (the economy) by a non-producer (the government), mandates, government guided health options and less personal discussion with YOUR physician, less of your so called Roe v. Wade “right” to privacy and more government control of masses (every one of us will be on the government hook), fewer hospitals and less overall investment (gotta control costs), higher taxes (but it’s free! just like it is in Britain where taxes are skyrocketing)…I could go on and on and on. [History writer...how did you like that run-on sentence, if you can even want to call it a sentence?] All this because the left in this country believes that people have a RIGHT to health care. Well I’ve got news for you…that “right” DOESN’T and can NEVER exist as long as humans are humans! PLEASE, please, please, take some time and read up on the concept of “rights”!!!!!!!!! …and btw, don’t be fooled, if this “reform” passes, private plans will go the way of the dinosaur, it’s only a matter of time.
July 25th, 2009 | 2:03 pm
[...] Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada [...]
July 28th, 2009 | 11:55 pm
There is one thing being left out here. In the US we have this certain “RIGHT” known as liberty. Along with that comes self governance. Most people who do not have their annual check-up’s in this country do not make the decision based on having insurance of any kind. They make the decision to not have check-up’s based on the fact that: 1) They are feeling ok 2) They choose not to pay a one time bill of just a couple of hundred dollars to have the check up (not that much money if you save a bit throughout the year and definately much cheaper than a healthcare policy of any kind). At the end of the day there will be requirements in a government ran healthcare system, just like in Canada. One of these requirements is a manditory annual physical that can’t be opted out of or even scheduled at your own convenience resulting in reduced productivity and income.
Oddly enough they are not really giving a definition for what is a “preventable disease”. This would make one wonder what they decided to throw into the mix in order to skew their results.
The bottom line is that with the system the way it is we have choices and those who choose to not take care of themselves will more often suffer the conciquences. Liberals should understand this more than anyone. It’s known as a Darwin Effect, survival of the fittest…. In this case it may be survival of the smartest.
July 29th, 2009 | 4:07 am
“At the end of the day there will be requirements in a government ran healthcare system, just like in Canada. One of these requirements is a manditory annual physical that can’t be opted out of or even scheduled at your own convenience resulting in reduced productivity and income.”
As if… Healthcare in Canada does not work like that. You make appointments for your physical with your family doctor and like everywhere else, it is scheduled at your convenience.
Don’t want a physical this year, no problem. The only person scolding you will be your doctor (not the government) as an annual physical is a good way to diagnose “preventable disease”.
July 29th, 2009 | 10:35 pm
[...] Something to consider before implementing socialized medicine Obamacare: American survival rates for most cancers are better than for Europeans or Canadians. [...]
August 1st, 2009 | 9:38 am
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716/20080716/
August 13th, 2009 | 7:10 pm
Having utilized the Veterans Administration health care for a few years I can only tell you that it should not be confused with good health care. The similarity to the Canadian system is striking even including mandatory physical examination and laboratory studies.
There is nothing about VA health care that I feel is even equal to the private health system.
I have personally practiced medicine for 30 years. The Lancet is a highly regarded medical journal from Great Britain and the published results are very clear. If you do not think 3 or 4 percent is a significant difference then you should try finding yourself on the short end of those statistics. Your opinion would change very quickly.
August 13th, 2009 | 11:05 pm
I have the orginal article that was used. I found it through my library database at my university. I know how to make Excel charts too, and will be making my own in response soon. Anyone interested in the article please contact me. I would like to add off the top that in regards to Hodgkins’s discease, testicular cancer, and cervical cancer we are not the leading country in survial rates. In fact, many Eurpean countries have much better survival rates.
August 23rd, 2009 | 2:29 am
Apples and Oranges – dont do it.
In europe everyone is covered in Us only those with some kind of cover.
Where are the statistics for America or those who have cancer but no insurance/not covered and died – back to skool!!!!
August 28th, 2009 | 1:45 am
I’m also not willing to pay to see the study, but I do know that Iceland also scored above 60 in men’s survival. I’ve also seen other sight who only claimed that the US beat the European average–an average that included the likes of Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, possibly Azerbaijan…
In other words, this is all pretty fishy stuff.
August 29th, 2009 | 6:54 pm
The US screens more for breast & prostate than the Europeans. This will give these cancers a higher cure rate, but not necessarilly drive down the gross amount of people that die. That’s because many of these cancers are slow moving or manifest in later age. All factors considered overall cancer outcomes are similar between the US and most of the EU. Since mammogram and PSA screening are significantly increasing across the EU expect them to lead this category in the future. The fact is while US medical technology is superior our current way of delivery is not.
August 29th, 2009 | 8:19 pm
Another issue to consider are the 45 million people that are not hooked into the system. How many of them suffer with little or no treatment and then die ? There is no parallel to this in any first world healthcare system.
August 29th, 2009 | 8:41 pm
I know several people over the yrs that died just that way. No insurance, no doctor, obviously something wrong, and then death. The best country in the world can do better than that.
August 29th, 2009 | 8:54 pm
Jesus said that we are our brothers keepers and commands us to heal the sick. Firstthingers ru listening…
August 29th, 2009 | 9:02 pm
Fact: More Americans leave the country for healthcare than foreigners come for it
August 31st, 2009 | 8:37 am
[...] [...]
September 8th, 2009 | 2:58 pm
Thanks for these statistics, I’ve been hearing about them and am glad you’re posting links to where they are coming from.
Note, you’re leaping to a few conclusions here and I’m wondering if you have any evidence to support them. You seem to be assuming that if the US went to a universal health care system that we’d suddenly be demotivated to get regular cancer screenings (like our Canadian and European counterparts). I would assume we’d keep getting regular screenings independent of the sort of health insurance system we have.
September 9th, 2009 | 10:37 pm
longwalk,
I would love to hear where exactly in the Bible you found Jesus saying we are our brothers’ keepers. I’m guessing you delved deep into your vast Biblical knowledge to pull that one out instead of, I don’t know, actually looking it up. It’s ok, the president made the same mistake.
September 13th, 2009 | 11:55 pm
Unfortunately attempts to prove survival rates from cancers are higher in the United States leave a great deal to be desired.
What is measured in the United States is those who are treated. It leaves out huge numbers of those who are not treated, because they lack health insurance or had their insurance cut off while they were being treated.
The statistics in the U.S. only cover those who received treatment, not those who did not.
Another glaring difference in the U.S. Statistics is that the European statistics count everyone who has had cancer, who has been treated for cancer and gets a survival rate.
In the United States, the major study that is being used to get these rates that conservatives who oppose insurance reform are using, itself admits that the U.S. survival rates may be greatly inflated by the methods used to get the figure.
The problem with the American statistics is that they use cancer registries which only include a small percentage of those who actually get cancer and are treated for it and then they mathematically extrapolate a rate for the entire U.S. population from registries that only keep track of a few percent of people who are being treated and survive or do not.
In Great Britain their cancer registries include 100 percent of the population for every illness measured. There is significant evidence that when the same methods that are used in the United States are used in Great Britain or anyplace else that has some form of Universal Health Care, that they get better survival rates than the United States does.
Even if more appropriate comparisons were made, these sound bites misrepresent the statistical analysis, and give a false impression of dramatic differences where there may be none. The CONCORD Study (1) found that the UK had lower survival rates. Below are some of the top countries, and England (the UK was divided into England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but all their results are similar, so England is used for simplicity).
Five year relative breast cancer survival rates from CONCORD study.
Rank….Country….mean (95% confidence interval)
1……….Cuba……….84.0 (82.9, 85.2)
2……….US………….83.9 (83.7, 84.1)
3……….Canada……82.5 (81.9, 83.0)
4………Sweden……82.0 (81.2, 82.7)
5………Japan……….81.6 (79.5, 83.5)
6………Australia.. ..80.7 (80.1, 81.3)
8………France……..79.8 (78.2, 81.4)
22…….England……69.8 (69.5, 70.2)
irst thing to note here is that the differences between the top countries are very small. The CONCORD study report warns that the ranking of the countries maybe unstable. There are differences between these countries that cannot be controlled for, and aspects of statistical analysis that are imprecise. While the CONCORD study defends its methods and says that the resulting biases are small, it also warns that when the differences between countries are small, then a small bias might make a big difference in the ranking. So, the bottom line is that from these data and the warnings provided by the study itself, we do not really know whether Cuba, the US, Canada, Sweden or Japan is ‘the best’ at treating breast cancer.
This is pretty much the case in all these attempts to measure survival rates for all cancers. Every one of the countries being compared provides its own statistics for the analysis. Every single country counts these survival rates using different methods, but the United States uses the worse method possible. It takes a very small sample of cancer sufferers (two or three percent of them) and then simply extrapolates across the entire population.
The Brits use the best system. They count everyone who has gotten a cancer and has been treated.
In the United States there are huge amounts of flaws in how anything is counted when it comes to medicine. There are many people who die of relatively simple to treat conditions, and when they drop dead of a heart attack, the death certificate reads “Died of Heart Attack” and not “Died of a Heart Attack because the patient had not seen a`doctor for ten years because they did not have health insurance for ten years”
Then there are the deaths that occur in hospitals that are treated as deaths due to medical error. The fact that the patient had cancer and was given an incorrect treatment does not go into those statistics of cancer survival rates. They go into the log of deaths caused by “Medical Error”
September 14th, 2009 | 12:06 am
Or to put it more simply. The United States uses a statistical method to, well basically, GUESS at its disease survival rates. The Europeans actually count everyone.
The fact that Europeans who have Universal Health Systems live longer is a key indicator that the U.S. Statistics do not tell the whole story with regard to survival rates.
Another problem with the U.S. and reporting of death rates, or infant mortality rates for any reason is that it relies completely on individual hospitals, doctors, health care proffessional and funeral parlors to report what caused the deaths. In most European countries, the death registries are centralized and the government gets the information directly.
Other differences also are related to resuscitation policies and how it defines things like infant mortality and “death by”
The old joke in hospitals is that the operation was a success, but the patient died is another such causitive agent. If a patient is being operated on to remove a cancer, the anesthesiologist keeps them alive throughout the sugery by artificially keeping their heart pumping and lungs breathing, the way the dealth may be reported can vary widely depending on the hospital policies. They died of cancer, but the death certificate may read something else entirely
September 14th, 2009 | 7:00 pm
Oh Baloney on nearly every point. Birth death rates for newborns in this country are skewed. Infants born under a certain weight or size are never even counted as being alive in many parts of Europe. They are counted as a still born. Here, we count every soul as alive unless of course the infant is in fact dead at birth.. In the US weight or size doesn’t determine whether or not a human being is alive. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
The point is, with socialized health care many people don’t get the testing,the drugs or the treatment they need. In fact they will die because it will be refused. Tests, drugs, and treatment are considered too expensive. Health care is quite simply rationed. Once you reach your yearly quota you are done. Age is another factor. I know first hand of a 76 year old in Holland that was not treated for Prostate cancer. He came here, for treatment. Another case in point is the use of Herceptin for breast cancer. It is highly effective but very expensive. ($60,000 a year) You won’t have problem with getting the drug here, in the US but you might in New Zealand. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/postrel-drugs
Included in the number of people counted without health care are illegals and foreign students. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t have health insurance and I am not rich.
We need free clinics(which we have now) and we need catastrophic insurance for those who can not afford health care. Insurance should follow the person. We don’t need the federal govt, to bankrupt this country with a federal program.What have they ever done right?
BTW, I wouldn’t believe Cuba’s numbers for health care.
In many countries in Europe there is a tax for health care but that is not enough. Citizens have to buy private insurance as a supplement.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact