UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe

Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.
   
England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.

Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.

Top three Cancer survival rates--Female

USA: 62.9%
Iceland: 61.8%
Sweden: 61.7%

Top three Cancer survival rates--Male

USA: 66.3%
Sweden: 60.3%
Iceland: 57.7%

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/08/21/ncancer121.gif

--No, say it isn't so!  America's healthcare system is terrible!  Just ask any of the democrats running for President.  The UK system of single-payer, government-run healthcare with long waiting lists is the way to go!

i'm not sure anyone's arguing that the US health care system isn't excellent for those who can afford it. but these above statistics say nothing about accessibility, which is actually the problem. i'm sure people who make 200K a year in the US and get diagnosed with a serious illness are likely to do quite well in the healthcare system. but i'm wondering whether, if you parsed out these statistics, you might find out that the survivability rate is actually much higher for those who can get access, and much much lower for those who can't.

i'm not sure anyone's arguing that the US health care system isn't excellent for those who can afford it. but these above statistics say nothing about accessibility, which is actually the problem. i'm sure people who make 200K a year in the US and get diagnosed with a serious illness are likely to do quite well in the healthcare system. but i'm wondering whether, if you parsed out these statistics, you might find out that the survivability rate is actually much higher for those who can get access, and much much lower for those who can't.

While my mom has finally exhausted all of her options for treatment, she's been living with cancer for close to 4 years now.  Her primary insurance is Medicare and she & my father make nowhere near $200K (and never have).

That being said, I'd venture to guess that you're right about accessibility.  Fortunately, here in Illinois, the governor has passed legislation for little/no cost health insurance for ALL Illinois residents.  Cost is based on ability to pay and I think the last I looked at the info, the highest premium was about $60/month (for a family of 5 with an income of $60K+?)....the lowest was free with no copay or deductible.  It may not be a perfect system, but I think it should be a starting point for the rest of the country, if not the federal government because our current system (NONE) sucks.

That being said, I'd venture to guess that you're right about accessibility.  Fortunately, here in Illinois, the governor has passed legislation for little/no cost health insurance for ALL Illinois residents.  Cost is based on ability to pay and I think the last I looked at the info, the highest premium was about $60/month (for a family of 5 with an income of $60K+?)....the lowest was free with no copay or deductible.  It may not be a perfect system, but I think it should be a starting point for the rest of the country, if not the federal government because our current system (NONE) sucks.


Yeah, I was looking forward to taking advantage of that program. Rice_Cube doesn't make that much, so Jason and I would have gotten free healthcare. Our insurance right now is crap and it's expensive.

It may not be a perfect system, but I think it should be a starting point for the rest of the country, if not the federal government because our current system (NONE) sucks.


That's not a model, it's a disaster.

I know in today's world it's foreign to say since people are slowly becoming more and more dependent on the government to micromanage nearly every aspect of their life, but no one has a right to government-funded healthcare.  There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution promising such a thing.

Whatever happened to being responsible for ones' own self?

if government-run healthcare is the way to keep more people healthier, then that's what i want. if a private system keeps more people healthier, then THAT's what i want. there's something about this whole "personal responsibility" thing that gets a bit unpalatable when we're talking about life-or-death diseases that people frequently contract through no fault of their own.

i mean, does "personal responsibility" in this case mean if you've been unable to afford healthcare and you get a serious illness, you should just be forced to choose between death and bankruptcy? is that what compassionate conservatism amounts to? would you feel that way if we were talking about someone you know, love, or otherwise care about?

all i can say is, we've had a private system in america for a long time. it doesn't seem to be working.

if government-run healthcare is the way to keep more people healthier, then that's what i want. if a private system keeps more people healthier, then THAT's what i want. there's something about this whole "personal responsibility" thing that gets a bit unpalatable when we're talking about life-or-death diseases that people frequently contract through no fault of their own.

i mean, does "personal responsibility" in this case mean if you've been unable to afford healthcare and you get a serious illness, you should just be forced to choose between death and bankruptcy? is that what compassionate conservatism amounts to? would you feel that way if we were talking about someone you know, love, or otherwise care about?

all i can say is, we've had a private system in america for a long time. it doesn't seem to be working.



karma+!! I totally agree.  In Pennsylvania the state has a plan for children (CHIP) in which they can receive free or VERY low cost healthcare. For adults we have a program called AdultBasic...it's like $35/month or so...BUT, the problem is...you are put on a pretty long waiting list in order to obtain this insurance.

I agree....if there is some way that government-run healthcare would help the vast majority of people who can't afford healthcare plans...than so be it.  Personally, I would love to be able to "take my own responsibility" and obtain my own insurance....but there is no way (on my husband and my own wages) that we can afford hundreds of dollars a month for a decent plan.

karma+!! I totally agree.  In Pennsylvania the state has a plan for children (CHIP) in which they can receive free or VERY low cost healthcare. For adults we have a program called AdultBasic...it's like $35/month or so...BUT, the problem is...you are put on a pretty long waiting list in order to obtain this insurance.

I agree....if there is some way that government-run healthcare would help the vast majority of people who can't afford healthcare plans...than so be it.  Personally, I would love to be able to "take my own responsibility" and obtain my own insurance....but there is no way (on my husband and my own wages) that we can afford hundreds of dollars a month for a decent plan.


We do, but it's hell on earth. Almost $200 for Jason a MONTH, with a $250 deductible and a $30 co-pay. Mine is only $77 a month, BUT....the deductible is $2500 and I still have a $30 co-pay. So essentially I'm paying for everything everytime I have to go to the doctor. It's effin' ridiculous.

Mind you, this is done on $25,000 a year. You can see why I'm willing to screw personal responsibility for just a break on healthcare for my kid. ::)

Mind you, this is done on $25,000 a year. You can see why I'm willing to screw personal responsibility for just a break on healthcare for my kid. ::)


I can totally understand and relate. :-\\

The article doe not say socialized medicine per se is the problem, but mismanagement of socialized medicine.
In that limited study, while the U.S. takes a significant lead, the number two and number three countries are Iceland and Sweden, both of which have comprehensive nationalized healthcare systems.  In fact, according to the list, out of the top 12 the U.S. alone does not have nationalized healthcare.

The Telegraph article does not discuss why the U.S. has the highest cancer survival rate in this study and among the types of cancer examined in the study.  However, one might infer, as you have, that since Professor Kunkler apportions part of the blame to waiting lists for radiotherapy, that socialized medicine on the whole is inferior to free market medicine on the whole. 

Evidence in general suggests otherwise.  Per the same Telegraph story:
A second article, which looked at 2.7 million patients diagnosed between 1995 and 1999, found that countries that spent the most on health per capita per year had better survival rates.
Thus it appears healthcare is a good investment for governments.  The problem with Britain is ineffective spending. 

The conservative rejoinder, of course, is per capita expenditures might be private sector, not government, and the U.S. does have some fine NGOs advocating prevention of cancer (eg. the American Cancer Society).  I see no reason to believe the private insurance companies can take credit because their mission is to spend as little per patient as possible (as opposed to "most on health per capita."  The industry says so itself.

Though the Telegraph has a conservative bias, the Lancet, where the original study was published, is one of the top medical journals in the world.*  Bear in mind, the research says the problem is with diagnosis not treatment under NHS.

Conservative bloggers are quick to point out the BBC did not discuss the U.S. results.  They have a point.  I wish the three British sources I saw first, The Guardian, the BBC, and the Telegraph had discussed the 7% lead in the United States.  I have not researched it myself. 

I would not doubt there are some things the U.S. does better than other countries in healthcare.  Perhaps cancer screening is one of them.  I have noticed since the early '90s public service interests have been aggressively advocating people get screened for common cancers such as breast, prostate, and colon cancer. 

However, the conservative bloggers have not explored the specifics either.  They have merely extrapolated a finding, which might be completely anomolous, into a case against socialized medicine.

I have only conjecture myself.  Thus, I have restricted my argument to the scant information reported in the media from this Lancet Oncology study, and from there, the U.S. still appears to be on the wrong track despite a handsome lead in this specific cancer survival rate study.

*Conservatives damned the Lancet over its study of death rates in the Iraq war last year, but you know how it goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nixweiss.gif

Obviously these statistics are all rigged.  Everybody knows that the American health care system is a complete sack of crap.  Show up at an emaegency room and they give you a wedgie.  Complain about how long it is taking and the wedgie goes atomic.  The only solution to this madness is to nationalize the health care system.

If you doubt what I am saying, just listen in on the Presidential debates to get the real poop on this subject.  ::)

Obviously these statistics are all rigged.  Everybody knows that the American health care system is a complete sack of crap.  Show up at an emaegency room and they give you a wedgie.  Complain about how long it is taking and the wedgie goes atomic.  The only solution to this madness is to nationalize the health care system.

If you doubt what I am saying, just listen in on the Presidential debates to get the real poop on this subject.  ::)


Or you can just go to the emergency room for heat exhaustion and go home with a $5000 hospital bill. I mean, they must be the best to charge you that much just to stick an I.V. in your arm. ::)

Or you can just go to the emergency room for heat exhaustion and go home with a $5000 hospital bill. I mean, they must be the best to charge you that much just to stick an I.V. in your arm. ::)


Have you ever looked at an itemized hospital bill? They literally charge you for a blanket if they cover you with one! It's about $50. Then they charge you, BY THE HOUR, if you're put in an actual emergency room. And when the doctor takes forever.... :P

Or at least they did that at the hospital I used to go to when I had issues and no insurance. ::)

Yeah, I was looking forward to taking advantage of that program. Rice_Cube doesn't make that much, so Jason and I would have gotten free healthcare. Our insurance right now is crap and it's expensive.


MmmHmm, I'm already working through all the loop-holes.

Obviously these statistics are all rigged.
I didn't say that.  I said the statistics are the findings of a single study published in a reputable medical journal.  I did not dismiss the findings of the study.  I merely said those who reported on the study did not explain why the U.S. has a higher survival rate.  I also said that according to the findings of the study itself, it is fallacious to imply America's healthcare system is superior.  That's all.

 

Better rates of survival? Unless, of course, you happen to be African American.  Seems substandard care has been proven, and it cuts across all social/economic divisions, which kinda scares me to death since I have been called back for a second mammogram. 

Better rates of survival? Unless, of course, you happen to be African American.  Seems substandard care has been proven, and it cuts across all social/economic divisions, which kinda scares me to death since I have been called back for a second mammogram. 

It's like I said, the statistic itself is not meaningless, but its significance is hard to gauge without more information, such as a demographic breakdown. 

I noticed the worst survival rates in Britain were found to be in Scotland and the professor discussing it was from Edinburgh.  Unlike in America, they did not send a propagandist from the insurance lobby to dismiss the findings; they addressed the findings with scholarly inquisition and intend to do something about it.

American conservatives spread specious invective about nationalized healthcare the day the study was reported--a study that does not support their claims--which indicates to me the diminishing ranks of pro-HMO cheerleaders are grasping for straws.
::)

That's not a model, it's a disaster.

I know in today's world it's foreign to say since people are slowly becoming more and more dependent on the government to micromanage nearly every aspect of their life, but no one has a right to government-funded healthcare.  There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution promising such a thing.

Whatever happened to being responsible for ones' own self?
A majority of the people ARE "being responsible for one's own self" because they are required to pay a monthly premium.....it's just not as much as they would pay a "private" insurance company for the same or similar coverage.

A majority of the people ARE "being responsible for one's own self" because they are required to pay a monthly premium.....it's just not as much as they would pay a "private" insurance company for the same or similar coverage.

"Being responsible for one's own self" has nothing to do with a healthcare policy that works.  Here we are in the U.S. with a hodge-podge of overpriced private insurance plans that costs us more, makes us less safe, makes us less healthy, and less competitive in the marketplace than other nations.  Are the citizens of Canada, Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Switzerland, Austria....etc, etc....less "personally responsible" than Americans?  Is that where we're going here?  Come on, this is silly; risible.
::)

"Being responsible for one's own self" has nothing to do with a healthcare policy that works.  Here we are in the U.S. with a hodge-podge of overpriced private insurance plans that costs us more, makes us less safe, makes us less healthy, and less competitive in the marketplace than other nations.  Are the citizens of Canada, Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Switzerland, Austria....etc, etc....less "personally responsible" than Americans?  Is that where we're going here?  Come on, this is silly; risible.
::)


Meanwhile drug companies use us as guinea pigs for their products and overcharge us for the "priviledge"  >:(

well, i guess the rather stunning conclusion we can draw from all this is that, yes, strange though it may seem, conservatives plainly deem the status quo to be acceptable. it's as though their taste for all this "personal responsibility" and "free market" happy talk exceeds their taste for striving toward a genuinely decent society.

--No, say it isn't so!  America's healthcare system is terrible!  Just ask any of the democrats running for President.  The UK system of single-payer, government-run healthcare with long waiting lists is the way to go!

Well, at best all the study shows, if you think about it, is where cancer is on the scale of importance in the various health services.  Certainly here, some cancers (especially prostate) are so rarely talked about, most guys only go to see the doc once it's way too late.  Survival rate here for breast cancer is reasonable because that's where a lot of the screening and effort goes.

The other note is that is "survival rate after diagnosis" - i.e. if your cancer wasn't diagnosed so that you die from it, you won't be included in that statistic ('cause it's trying to measure health service efficiency).  How many people in the US without health insurance simply won't be included in those stats?  ISTM that while the statistics do show some interesting things, what you can't derive from them is the conclusion that the article draws (there have been some letters to this effect in the Torygraph - I caught the letters but not the original article).  Max is spot on with his caveats about conclusions.

The Torygraph has a cheek, though, in some of the conclusions it draws - in the days before the Thatcher government, the NHS was the most cost-effective health service anywhere in the world, period.  Problem was, it was majorly underfunded and struggling to cope with demand.  The Thatcher government instituted a bunch of reforms, bringing in "competition", on the basis that this makes companies leaner, meaner and better.  Bunch of dumb idiots, you ask me - competition only makes the average better if those at the bottom end of the scale (i.e. the worst-performing hospitals) close down.  Except that this isn't a politically acceptable option, so the impact of a little bit of free-marketry in health provision has improved things not one iota overall, just added another layer of bureaucracy and expenditure.

The Labour party have hugely increased spending, but the new money comes with strings (and consultants, business not medical) attached; and they've skewed priorities something ridiculous with a combination of nice, headline-grabbing targets and an attempt to provide "choice" to the consumer.  Consumer choice, of course, simply means that the hospitals seen as being better get more money, but those thought of as not so good get doubly shafted... but again, it's politically inexpedient to let them close (and sometimes geographically *very* inexpedient), so you're left with a very two-tier system as an inevitable result of government policy.

The thing that pisses me off most is the way the Labour party has crowed about the extra money spent, as though spending money is a good thing in itself; and the Tories have castigated them about the lack of improvement, when the major reason for the lack of improvement is the system they brought in when they were last in power.  A plague o' both their houses.

If we actually had a simple, socialized model of healthcare delivery in this country, with minimal interference from government and priorities decided by medical rather than business need, I reckon there's a chance that it might actually work... as things stand: hell, no chance whatsoever.

Meanwhile drug companies use us as guinea pigs for their products and overcharge us for the "priviledge"   >:(


Bear in mind he might really think that the citizens of Canada, Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Switzerland, Austria....etc, etc....less "personally responsible" than Americans.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/usa2.gif