Old Yanks Have More Chronic Illnesses Than Brits, But Live Longer
RAND corporation researchers have taken a look at chronic disease rates among older folks in the U.S. and the U.K and find that Americans suffer at twice the rate that Brits do. So they must be dropping like flies, right? Well, actually no. It turns out that the beneficiaries of Britain's National Health Service have a higher mortality rate than do benighted Americans who cling to the last vestiges of their private health insurance system. Last vestiges? Of course, Medicare is government-run but it benefits from the spillover advances made and paid for by private medicine. As ScienceDaily reports:
Researchers found that while Americans aged 55 to 64 have higher rates of chronic diseases than their peers in England, they died at about the same rate. And Americans age 65 and older -- while still sicker than their English peers -- had a lower death rate than similar people in England, according to findings published in the journal Demography….
"If you get sick at older ages, you will die sooner in England than in the United States," Smith said. "It appears that at least in terms of survival at older ages with chronic disease, the medical system in the United States may be better than the system in England." …
The findings showed that both disease prevalence and the onset of new disease were higher among Americans for the illnesses studied -- diabetes, high-blood pressure, heart disease, heart attack, stroke, chronic lung diseases and cancer. Researchers found that the higher prevalence of illness among Americans compared to the English that they previously found for those aged 55 to 64 was also apparent for those in their 70s. Diabetes rates were almost twice as high in the United States as in England (17.2 percent versus 10.4 percent) and cancer prevalence was more than twice as high in the United States (17.9 percent compared to 7.8 percent) for people in their 70s.
In spite of both higher prevalence and incidence of disease in America, death rates among Americans were about the same in the younger ages in this period of life and actually lower at older ages compared to the English.
Researchers say there are two possible explanations why death rates are higher for English after age 65 as compared to Americans. One is that the illnesses studied result in higher mortality in England than in the United States. The second is that the English are diagnosed at a later stage in the disease process than Americans.
"Both of these explanations imply that there is higher-quality medical care in the United States than in England, at least in the sense that these chronic illnesses are less likely to cause death among people living in the United States," Smith said.
"The United States' health problem is not fundamentally a health care or insurance problem, at least at older ages," Banks said. "It is a problem of excess illness and the solution to that problem may lie outside the health care delivery system. The solution may be to alter lifestyles or other behaviors."
The good news is that American medicine so far has been increasingly able to rescue many of us who insist on enjoying in our bad health habits. The bad news is that health nannies now aim to force us to shape up. If we refuse, we will eventually be blessed with the same results that socialized medicine produces in Britain: Die and save the taxpayers money.
Kudos to Phil Meade.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good morning surviving friends across the pond.
Maybe the fact we spend over 2x on health care for the old folks has something to do with it.
Nah, it's that 'orrible 'aggis.
Well, sure it has something to do with it, yeah, but it's quite a bit different of a discussion when you start talking about "should we spend this extra money that has real benefits, are those benefits worth it?" compared to just pretending that the extra money is wasted.
President Obama liked to talk about a red pill and a blue pill, each just as good but one cheaper. That's not so often the case-- and even where it is, you can easily expect whoever's paying (insurance companies, government, individuals) to push for the "just as good but cheaper" alternative. Many times the real question is between "not quite as good but much cheaper" and "clearly more effective but much more expensive." Those are the really tricky cases; anyone who has those diseases is going to want "the best," at least if they aren't the ones paying.
Nanny: "Stop smoking! It will take years off your life!"
Kid: "Yeah, the shitty ones."
It's true: if you're the kind of person who likes being alive, the British National Health Service is hands down the worst in the industrialized world, and it's not even close.
If my life was on the line and I had to choose between the British system and some witch doctor deep in the Amazon, it would be an extremely tough choice.
The United States' health problem is not fundamentally a health care or insurance problem, at least at older ages.
This is going to be the liberal emphasis, that older people benefit from the government insurance. They'll happily ignore the costs to innovation that would result if we went universal for the whole population.
They'll also ignore the fact that the study controlled for universal care access by comparing them to Great Britain.
not to mention that the current private sector insurance cross subsidizes medicare patients. Doctors will take medicare if it covers the marginal cost of the additional patients. But the reimbursment rates are not high enough to take average total cost. Fixed costs are payed for by private insurance. If the whole system was on a medicare type system, then the current reimburmsnet rates would have to be cosndierably higher if you want to be able to find a doctor that will take you.
Exactly, or the quality of doctors will go down.
"private health insurance system"?
Evidently private is no longer a synonym for laissez faire.
It's a lie! Tony told me so.
Interesting. What's odd is that, according to a study done by AEI, the UK has a higher life expectancy than the US. I suppose this makes sense even though it's somewhat counterintuitive. The British are less likely to get sick, but more likely to die if they do get sick.
Do they control for violent death of males 16-30? Almost all life expectancy rates that look at whole life rate Americans behind European countries with similar per capita GDP. However, if you survive until your 30th birthday as an American, you magically go on to statistically outlive everyone.
I'm not saying either way of looking at life expectancy is better, just that there is a known statistical artefact that explains your apparent contradiction.
Oops, my AEI number was life expectancy at 65. I forgot to include it in my post, my bad.
I'd want to know if their definition of infant mortality is the same as that used here in the US. Some European countries classify premature births as miscarriages if the infant is below a certian weight or is clearly not viable, whereas in the US we will classify it as a live birth and spend a million dollars trying to save it.
And as Brett noted life expectancy includes things like homicide, suicide, and car accidents, none of which the health care system can do much about.
Pablo & Brett: They are looking only at mortality rates over age 54 in both countries, so infant mortality and crime mortality are not relevant to their analysis.
I agree. I was comparing with Mo's AEI number which he says have Americans living shorter lives. Where you take the measurement matters if you are comparing American longevity to other populations.
Heck, even autoerotic asphyxiation counts. Can't blame that one on the health care system.
Oops, forgot to add, this was life expectancy at age 65. So young violent deaths and infant mortality don't come into it.
Of course, Medicare is government-run but it benefits from the spillover advances made and paid for by private medicine.
It is also subject to indirect market discipline. If they whack the physician rates too much or pile on too much regulation, physicians drop out of Medicare. Physicians can do this because there is still a "private" alternative market.
Go full-monty single payer, and this alternative goes away, physicians are trapped, and the cuts wash down to reduced quality and access. For everyone.
So, a hybrid system sucks, but not nearly as bad as a single payer system.
RCD: Excellent point. Thanks.
Agreed. I've actually heard other libertarians opine that single payer might possibly perform more efficiently than our present muck.
I think a choice needs to be made--either 1) everyone covered to a certain level (single payer), with the trade off being innovation is limited and care is rationed according to cost efficiency, or 2) a true free market. I think the system we have now is the worst of both worlds.
Why? Especially considering that "everyone is covered to a certain level" under our current system.
Although you do realize that for leftist reformers, this means that if they can just get rid of that alternative (possibly going full-on illegal to seek care outside the system), then they'll finally be able to control costs. After all, to them it's merely doctors' greed keeping those costs higher. (Or somehow the fault of insurance companies.)
Re: R C Dean,
Totally correct, as the true cost of a good is reflected in economic terms always, not just monetary, be it quality, quantity, or shortages.
Of course, Medicare is government-run but it benefits from the spillover advances made and paid for by private medicine.
I don't understand the point of this sentence. How would Medicare, being just a payment system, benefit from advances in medicine? Did you mean that people with Medicare coverage benefit from medical advances made in the private sector?
Not just Medicare patients, but Medicare itself.
Some advances are better care for money, but many are better care for less money. Some of those new pharma treatments are damned expensive, for a pill, but they substitute for even more expensive "conventional" treatments.
....and the money for pharma research comes from...
"Why don't you go ask STEPHEN HAWKING what HE thinks of NHS?" is one of my favorite leftist retorts to criticism of the UK's health care system.
Yes, I'm sure if I were also a genius scientist, national treasure, and intellectual celebrity, any nationalized health care system would take great care of me, too.
I was watching an old movie a few weeks back, Witness for the Prosecution.
One of the key witnesses was a maid who supposedly heard the killer talking to the victim on the night of the murder. But the defense attorney showed that she was hard of hearing.
Why was she hard of hearing?
She was waiting six months for the NHS to give a lousy pair of hearing aids.
The second is that the English are diagnosed at a later stage in the disease process than Americans.
I suspect this is the main difference.
If we refuse, we will eventually be blessed with the same results that socialized medicine produces in Britain: Die and save the taxpayers money.
THAT'S THE REPUBLICANS PLAN YOU ASSHO-
awww, fuck it, it's our plan too
lol
A small part of me is going to miss you Alan, simply for the over-the-top buffoonish jackassery.
Who is dying? Mike M give him something to remember you š
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
The study fails to draw any meaningful conclusion because it suffers from design flaw.
Had they compared Americans of British ancestry to British, they might have had something.
With the Great Wave of Immigration between 1880 and 1910, American became polluted by weaker peoples with weaker genetic makeup -- Irish, Italian, Polish, and the like.
The Clinton Great Wave of Immigration in the 1990s further polluted America with weaker peoples from Central America.
The above is neither racism (organizing into a group and then racing for the spoils of income taxation redistribution, e.g., NAACP, Act Up!, NOW, La Raza) nor is it racialism (anthropological bigotry).
Fuck you.
up the ass with a piece of barbed wire.
Yes, but the reason Americans have higher levels of disease is probably due to the stress and uncertainty of our more stratified system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study