Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: International Comparison

  1. #1
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,922
    Thanks
    1449

    International Comparison

    Davis (2007, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care, Medical Benefits, Vol 24 Issue 14, pp 9-10) wrote:

    The article presents an international update on the comparative performance of the health care system in the U.S. It was cited that the country consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance despite having the most costly health system. Compared with Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and Great Britain, the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system, including quality, access, efficiency, equity and health lives.

    Any improvement since then or is that a silly question?

  2. #2
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    58,108
    Thanks
    10585

    From
    By the wall
    What parameters are they using to gauge this?

    How many are covered, the quality of coverage, the cost of it, how quick it is to get treatment, R&D development?

    Kind of hard to say if its improved if we don't know what was suppose to improve.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,083
    Thanks
    3770

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    Davis (2007, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care, Medical Benefits, Vol 24 Issue 14, pp 9-10) wrote:

    The article presents an international update on the comparative performance of the health care system in the U.S. It was cited that the country consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance despite having the most costly health system. Compared with Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and Great Britain, the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system, including quality, access, efficiency, equity and health lives.

    Any improvement since then or is that a silly question?
    It's a silly question. Do you have another?



    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 26th August 2017 at 05:04 PM.

  4. #4
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,922
    Thanks
    1449

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    What parameters are they using to gauge this?

    How many are covered, the quality of coverage, the cost of it, how quick it is to get treatment, R&D development?

    Kind of hard to say if its improved if we don't know what was suppose to improve.
    "The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: right (or effective) care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care...For this report, we selected and grouped indicators from these three surveys using the National Scorecard’s dimensions of quality. Quality was measured by 39 indicators, broken down into four areas (17 right care measures, five safe care measures, six coordinated care measures, and 11 patient-centered care measures). There are 10 access indicators (three for cost-related access problems, and seven indicators of timeliness of care), and eight efficiency indicators. For the equity measure, we compared experiences of adults with incomes above or below national median incomes to examine low-income experiences across countries and differences between those with lower and higher incomes for each of nine indicators. For the healthy lives dimension, we compiled three indicators from the OECD and the WHO"

  5. #5
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    58,108
    Thanks
    10585

    From
    By the wall
    Quote Originally Posted by Ęthelfrith View Post
    "The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: right (or effective) care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care...For this report, we selected and grouped indicators from these three surveys using the National Scorecard’s dimensions of quality. Quality was measured by 39 indicators, broken down into four areas (17 right care measures, five safe care measures, six coordinated care measures, and 11 patient-centered care measures). There are 10 access indicators (three for cost-related access problems, and seven indicators of timeliness of care), and eight efficiency indicators. For the equity measure, we compared experiences of adults with incomes above or below national median incomes to examine low-income experiences across countries and differences between those with lower and higher incomes for each of nine indicators. For the healthy lives dimension, we compiled three indicators from the OECD and the WHO"
    Well you certainly can't argue with their methodology.

    Very thorough.

    However it should be noted that the indicators they are using can easily be handpicked to produce desired results.

    Its like exit polling.

    You get to pick the people you want to ask questions of.

    If you pick only people that look like farmers or someone from a certain race you will get desired results for whatever questions you are asking.

    Its the same principle for picking indicators.

    Unless they are randomly chosen or all are included the report is suspect.

    For instance, I could change their results simply by using other indicators they didn't.

  6. #6
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,922
    Thanks
    1449

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Well you certainly can't argue with their methodology.

    Very thorough.

    However it should be noted that the indicators they are using can easily be handpicked to produce desired results.

    Its like exit polling.
    You've gone from 'very thorough' to 'handpicked'. Its gone through peer review and of course happy for you to provide counter evidence on anything they've missed.

    You get to pick the people you want to ask questions of.

    If you pick only people that look like farmers or someone from a certain race you will get desired results for whatever questions you are asking.

    Its the same principle for picking indicators.
    Not really. Poll questioning can be deliberately worded to get desired results. Here we have accepted quality measures which they haven't engineered.

    Unless they are randomly chosen or all are included the report is suspect.

    For instance, I could change their results simply by using other indicators they didn't.
    Random sampling is of course used.
    Last edited by Ęthelfrith; 27th August 2017 at 02:00 AM.

  7. #7
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    58,108
    Thanks
    10585

    From
    By the wall
    Peer review doesn't mean something is true.

    It means the information was verified and the methods are reasonable.

    This is why you find many peer reviewed reports that say completely opposite things.

    I don't know if their conclusions are accurate unless another similar detailed report comes out.

    It could be.

    I was just saying that because something is in a well done report that it doesn't mean its always correct.

    There are many peer reviewed reports in science journals that get proved wrong all the time.

  8. #8
    Scucca Ęthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,922
    Thanks
    1449

    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    Peer review doesn't mean something is true.
    Obvious biases in empirical analysis, and that's all you've referred to, are discovered and eliminated.

    It means the information was verified and the methods are reasonable.
    You're again showing inconsistency. So far this is a "thorough" and "reasonable" article!

    This is why you find many peer reviewed reports that say completely opposite things.
    Already asked you to give a counter paper. Where is it?

    I don't know if their conclusions are accurate unless another similar detailed report comes out.

    It could be.
    Its not new. Any obvious problems will appear in subsequent publications.

    I was just saying that because something is in a well done report that it doesn't mean its always correct.

    There are many peer reviewed reports in science journals that get proved wrong all the time.
    But your critiqued failed (e.g. inappropriate reference to random sampling)...

Similar Threads

  1. My comparison of Trump supporters. You have any?
    By thrilling in forum Current Events
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 13th September 2016, 11:44 AM
  2. A comparison
    By The Man in forum Racism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th December 2013, 10:33 AM
  3. A comparison
    By The Man in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 9th June 2013, 04:28 AM
  4. US, Canada, UK health comparison
    By tagurit in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 8th October 2009, 08:58 AM
  5. Comparison
    By Oberdan in forum World Politics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 17th December 2006, 09:39 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed