Government-Run Health Care: Bad for Patients
On Cancer Outcomes, American Health Care Leads the World
To bolster their case for a government takeover of health care, some Democrats use statistics like life expectancy and infant mortality to argue that American health care is inferior to most European nations. However, such measures reflect the influence of factors other than the quality of health care provided—demographics, socioeconomic factors, obesity rates, and tobacco use, among others.
When comparing treatment outcomes for patients diagnosed with specific ailments, the strengths of U.S. health care shine through—particularly in comparison to government-run systems that ration access to treatments on cost grounds. For instance, a recent report found that up to 15,000 lives could be saved every year if patients in Britain’s National Health Service received the same quality care that patients in the United States obtain. The report prompted complaints from patient advocates that senior citizens receive sub-standard care; one activist found it “appalling that people over 75 are not getting the care they need…it is scandalous that not everyone is getting” access to treatment. In its coverage of the report, the BBC relayed the story of one 74-year-old ovarian cancer patient, who according to her daughter had to travel to Iran to receive a proper diagnosis:
Mum started to have bleeding early in 2007. She went to the [general practitioner], but they just took her off her [hormone replacement therapy] and sent her to a gynecologist. He said it was probably just stress. It was only when she went back to visit family in Iran and saw a doctor there that she was diagnosed. They did a scan and found a large lump in her fallopian tube. When she came back to the UK, doctors found the cancer had spread to one of her lymph glands. It was the size of a tennis ball. She then had a six-week wait before having a hysterectomy and then chemo. Her treatment was very good, but the diagnosis was abysmal. If it had been found 18 months earlier, it could have been removed easily and she wouldn’t have needed a hysterectomy or chemo.
In direct comparisons of outcomes measures, U.S. health care more than holds its own against government-run health systems. One study published in The Lancet Oncology in September 2007 documented five-year survival rates for a variety of cancers—and in virtually all cases, U.S. outcomes met or exceeded other nations’ results:
Five Year Survival Rates, Selected Countries and Cancers
| Norway | England | EU Average | United States | |
| Colorectal | 59.5%* | 51.8%* | 56.2%* | 65.5% |
| Lung | 11.2%* | 8.4%* | 10.9%* | 15.7% |
| Skin Melanoma | 86.8%* | 84.8%* | 86.1%* | 92.3% |
| Breast | 84.1%* | 77.8%* | 79.0%* | 90.1% |
| Prostate | 79.0%* | N/A | 77.5%* | 99.3% |
| Kidney | 49.5%* | 46.7%* | 55.7%* | 62.6% |
| All Cancers, Men | 53.0%* | 44.8%* | 47.3%* | 66.3% |
| All Cancers, Women | 58.4%* | 52.7%* | 55.8%* | 62.9% |
Source: Arduino Verdecchia et al., “Recent Cancer Survival in Europe: A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4 Data,” Lancet Oncology 8 (September 2007): 784-96.
* Indicates statistical variation from the U.S. data at the 95% confidence interval.
The data demonstrate that for 10 of 16 specific cancers, American patients had statistically better outcomes than their European counterparts. And for the three cancers where European patients fared better, the differences in outcomes were statistically insignificant. The overall cancer outcomes for both men and women were also statistically significant, particularly for male cancers—nearly two in three American patients survived for at least five years, while fewer than half of European patients did.
A second Lancet Oncology study, this one published in August 2008, compared survival outcomes for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers for 31 countries on five continents. Here again, American survival outcomes also excelled, ranking first or second among all countries submitting reliable data.
Given these positive survival statistics for American cancer patients—particularly when compared to residents of England and other countries with government-run health care—some Members may view American health care, while in need of reform, delivering high-quality care in many areas. Members may also be concerned that some Democrat “reform” proposals—by putting bureaucrats between patients and their doctors—may undermine existing successes within American health care, subjecting patients to delays, denials of care, and ultimately worse outcomes.