TuTu Monroe
A Realist
No. 596
Thursday, October 11, 2007
by Betsy McCaughey
During this presidential election season, candidates are urging Americans to
radically overhaul our "broken" health care system. Before accepting the
premise that the system is broken, consider the impressive evidence from the
largest ever international study of cancer survival rates. The data show
that cancer patients live longer in the United States than anywhere else on
the globe.
Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival
rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology
: 1
American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after
a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure
I.]
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent - compared to only
47 percent for European men.
Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men
of more than 60 percent.
For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland)
have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those
with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old
government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European
average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent;
women, only 53 percent.
Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than
the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet
Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. As Figure II shows:
Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for
bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for
prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. 2
Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for
uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European
average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.
The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five
cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there
is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent
(testicular).
Furthermore, the Lancet Oncology study found that lung cancer patients in
the United States have the best chance of surviving five years - about 16
percent - whereas patients in Great Britain have only an 8 percent chance,
which is lower than the European average of 11 percent.
Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often
cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003
data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office,
and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are
higher in the United States than in Canada: 3
For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the
United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the
United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
Early Diagnosis. It is often claimed that people have better access to
preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the
large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most
likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access
to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in
the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer
every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great
Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government. 4
In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular
PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women
aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly - a higher percentage than in
Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of
British women.
Access to Treatments and Drugs. Early diagnosis is important, but survival
also depends on getting effective treatment quickly. However, long waits
for treatment are "common devices used to restrict access to care in
countries with universal health insurance," according to a report in Health
Affairs . 5 The British National Health Service has set a target for
reducing waits to no more than 18 weeks between the time their general
practitioner refers them to a specialist and they actually begin treatment.
A study by the Royal College of Radiologists showed that such long waits are
typical, and 13 percent of patients who need radiation never get it due to
shortages of equipment and staff. 6
Another reason for the higher cancer survival rates in the United States is
that Americans can get new, effective drugs long before they are available
in most other countries. A report in the Annals of Oncology by two Swedish
scientists found: 7
Cancer patients have the most access to 67 new drugs in France, the United
States, Switzerland and Austria.
Erlotinib, a new lung cancer therapy, was 10 times more likely to be
prescribed for a patient in the United States than in Europe.
One of the report's authors, Nils Wilking, from the Karolinska Institute in
Stockholm, explained that nearly half the improvement in survival rates in
the United States in the 1990s was due to "the introduction of new oncology
drugs," and he urged other countries to make new drugs available faster.
Conclusion. International comparisons establish that the most important
factors in cancer survival are early diagnosis, time to treatment and access
to the most effective drugs. Some uninsured cancer patients in the United
States encounter problems with timely treatment and access, but a far larger
proportion of cancer patients in Europe face these troubles. No country on
the globe does as good a job overall as the United States. Thus, the U.S.
government should focus on ensuring that all cancer patients receive timely
care, rather than radically overhauling the current system.
click here
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/43094.php
Thursday, October 11, 2007
by Betsy McCaughey
During this presidential election season, candidates are urging Americans to
radically overhaul our "broken" health care system. Before accepting the
premise that the system is broken, consider the impressive evidence from the
largest ever international study of cancer survival rates. The data show
that cancer patients live longer in the United States than anywhere else on
the globe.
Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival
rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology
: 1
American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after
a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure
I.]
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent - compared to only
47 percent for European men.
Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men
of more than 60 percent.
For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland)
have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those
with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old
government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European
average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent;
women, only 53 percent.
Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than
the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet
Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. As Figure II shows:
Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for
bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for
prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. 2
Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for
uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European
average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher.
The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five
cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there
is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent
(testicular).
Furthermore, the Lancet Oncology study found that lung cancer patients in
the United States have the best chance of surviving five years - about 16
percent - whereas patients in Great Britain have only an 8 percent chance,
which is lower than the European average of 11 percent.
Results for Canada. Canada's system of national health insurance is often
cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003
data by June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office,
and economist David O'Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are
higher in the United States than in Canada: 3
For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the
United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the
United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
Early Diagnosis. It is often claimed that people have better access to
preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the
large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most
likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access
to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in
the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer
every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great
Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government. 4
In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular
PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women
aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly - a higher percentage than in
Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of
British women.
Access to Treatments and Drugs. Early diagnosis is important, but survival
also depends on getting effective treatment quickly. However, long waits
for treatment are "common devices used to restrict access to care in
countries with universal health insurance," according to a report in Health
Affairs . 5 The British National Health Service has set a target for
reducing waits to no more than 18 weeks between the time their general
practitioner refers them to a specialist and they actually begin treatment.
A study by the Royal College of Radiologists showed that such long waits are
typical, and 13 percent of patients who need radiation never get it due to
shortages of equipment and staff. 6
Another reason for the higher cancer survival rates in the United States is
that Americans can get new, effective drugs long before they are available
in most other countries. A report in the Annals of Oncology by two Swedish
scientists found: 7
Cancer patients have the most access to 67 new drugs in France, the United
States, Switzerland and Austria.
Erlotinib, a new lung cancer therapy, was 10 times more likely to be
prescribed for a patient in the United States than in Europe.
One of the report's authors, Nils Wilking, from the Karolinska Institute in
Stockholm, explained that nearly half the improvement in survival rates in
the United States in the 1990s was due to "the introduction of new oncology
drugs," and he urged other countries to make new drugs available faster.
Conclusion. International comparisons establish that the most important
factors in cancer survival are early diagnosis, time to treatment and access
to the most effective drugs. Some uninsured cancer patients in the United
States encounter problems with timely treatment and access, but a far larger
proportion of cancer patients in Europe face these troubles. No country on
the globe does as good a job overall as the United States. Thus, the U.S.
government should focus on ensuring that all cancer patients receive timely
care, rather than radically overhauling the current system.
click here
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/43094.php
