"NHS among developed world's most efficient health systems, says study"

Walden posted on Sun, Aug 7 2011 8:03 PM

rated by 0 users

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

The methodology of the study is what seems really dodgy.

The percentage of health spending of total GDP is compared to mortality rates in given age groups. The resulting numbers therefore show the efficacy of the system.

This raises a few questions. Why a percentage of GDP? If we had to make such a comparison, wouldn't GDP per capita spending make more sense? I can think of no justification for using a percentage of GDP as a measurement of the "efficiency" of a given sector of that economy. I also can't understand the assumption that the NHS is saving every single life- apparently the fact that the average population in a given age group isn't kicking the bucket is solely to the credit of the medical system and there are no other variables to consider.

Is there any good resource that goes into more depth of statistics? I believe AE would say historical events are unique and the variables here seem to be so inumerable as to make comparing countries absurd. The Royal Society of Medicine Press obviously has...a different standard for publishing.

Here's a good bit about why the U.S. costs are higher:

"Although theoretically
a ‘Private’ system, such as the USA, relies on competition
to reduce costs, but because of these
inherent market failures of ‘asymmetric information’
and ‘adverse selection’ factors, there will
always be inherent market weaknesses within
the whole system,20 – 22 which may go some way
to explain the differences in the observed costeffectiveness
results of the USA and the UK."