Some unscrupulous advocacy groups and politicians have sought to exploit the tragedy of Nataline Sarkisyan for purposes of promoting single-payer health care. However, as Scott Gottlieb points out in this WSJ article, countries with government-run health systems don’t do as well as the U.S. in the area of transplants:
On balance, data suggests that in the U.S. transplant patients do quite well compared to their European counterparts, with significantly more opportunities to undergo transplant procedures, survive the surgery, and benefit from new organs.
For starters, we do more liver transplants per capita:
In 2002 — a year comparative data is available — U.S. doctors performed 18.5 liver transplants per one million Americans. This is significantly more than in the U.K. or in single-payer France, which performed 4.6 per million citizens, or in Canada, which performed 10 per million.
And outcomes?
One recent study found that patients’ five-year mortality after transplants for acute liver failure, the type from which Ms. Sarkisyan presumably suffered, was about 5% higher in the U.K. and Irleand than the U.S. The same study also found that in the period right after surgery, death rates were as much as 27% higher in the U.K. and Ireland than in the U.S.
What about other types of transplants, like hearts?
Patients were more likely to receive hearts in the U.S. … The rate was 8.8 transplants per one million people, compared to 5.4 in the U.K. Over the same period, about 15% of patients died while waiting for new hearts in the U.K. compared to 12% in the U.S.
And, despite the claims of many single-payer advocates, U.S. organ allocation isn’t dictated by ability to pay:
When it comes to livers, the majority of U.S. transplants are for chronic liver disease, usually resulting from hepatitis C or alcoholism. These are diseases disproportionately affecting lower-income Americans who predictably comprise a comparatively higher number of people getting new organs.
So, demagogues like John Edwards and single-payer zealots like those at the CNA are not merely guilty of the disgraceful exploitation of a tragedy, they are deliberately misleading the public on the ability of government-run health care to do better job on transplants than our current system.
Par for the course.
Comments 12
Have you learned nothing of statistics? “data suggests”, “studies show” this is like a TV commercial selling laundry detergent, if Dr. Gottlieb doesn’t quote his sources the information is as good as getting it off the bathroom wall. I also note he didn’t even bother to find what kind of liver failure she was suffering from despite the fact that is was all over the media, she had MSOF, not a good indication for transplant no matter what medical system you are in.
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 3:13 pm ¶hmmmm, look at this.
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 3:19 pm ¶http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSGOR17904920071121
Thanks drmatt - the UK of course is one of the pioneering countries in transplants.
As for the higher rates in the US, you of course have a larger pool of dead bodies to choose from thanks to all those cars and idiot drivers.
M.
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶Sorry I meant guns and idiot drivers
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶“hmmmm, look at this”
Actually, Dr. Gottlieb mentions the good stat on UK patients who manage to survive the first year (few though they are). But Reuters’ need to cherry pick that datum suggests that the WSJ piece is pretty accurate.
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 4:25 pm ¶Nope, any attempt to make claims about the accuracy of the data without seeing where it came from, or how it was collected and tabulated is about as guessing on how much fuel you will need in the space shuttle. My point was not to say that either system was doing a better job, it was to say that when you don’t know or understand the specifics you can make the data say whatever you want, which also makes it mean exactly nothing!
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 4:40 pm ¶drmatt, thanks for the link. Whe I read that, I thought of two different questions.
1. Are these numbers from NHS only, or the entire medical system in UK? I would be interested in seeing a breakout.
2. Is there a difference in the conditions requiring trasplants and the associated survival rate?
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 4:47 pm ¶Marc, you seem so miserable here. Why not just go back to the land of milk and honey where everything is so much better. You could forget all about your purgatorial sojourn with us savage yanks.
Posted 11 Jan 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶You have to have many questions about both comparisons. How where the numbers collected, what do they call severe. There is always a number called “lost to follow up” what do they do with those numbers? assume they died? assume they lived? how many did the us have, how many did the uk have. A huge question would be how many organs were even available, can’t really criticize the uk for doing less transplants if the organs were not available? also dr gottlieb writes “on balance” there is no such statistic. “on balance” the information is flimsy at best!
Posted 13 Jan 2008 at 6:10 am ¶I live in London, UK.
David - any particular reason why you deleted my location?
Posted 13 Jan 2008 at 7:01 am ¶I didn’t delete it (not deliberately anyway). If the info was there, it might have gone away when I was experimenting with various themes.
Posted 13 Jan 2008 at 9:20 am ¶OK Marc, I was just yanking your chain a little. From prior comments, I thought you went back and forth.
drmatt, those are also good questions. I think it all really comes together to show us how skewed any statistic can be. I would also tend to agree that cultural differences make an on-balance comparison problematic. One culture may have a higher incedence of cirossis, while another may have higher incedence of exposure to Hep-C. I would like to see how they balance the data.
Posted 14 Jan 2008 at 10:55 am ¶Post a Comment