Interesting. But if including the uninsured makes outcomes worse overall, then it’s still correct to say that, right?
Yep. But once the uninsured are insured for a period of time, then there’s a reversion to mean.
There’s also a brain-drain issue here that almost certainly helps US outcomes and makes comparison difficult: we take many of the doctors trained elsewhere in the world, particularly in Canada.
Interestingly, it’s been argued that NHS would collapse without Indian-born doctors willing to work for cheap.
I don’t know exactly how critical care is defined so I can’t respond to that part.
Critical care is pretty much anything that’s life threatening and requires constant treatment. Most of critical care is post-accident care, cardiac care, and cancer care. To be honest, I don’t know if things like diabetes are grouped in here as well.
For my part, I’m interested in any proposal that gives some other group (consumers or insurers) more clout in negotiating with doctors. Single payer appears to be one such proposal.
Sure. Right now, part of the problem is that if you’re an insurer, your customer is not the patient; your customer is the employer of the patient. This reduces the patient’s health and life to a statistic.
In Switzerland, which does use private insurance, there IS no group insurance; you can’t even group a family. After a baby is something like six months old, the baby must have his or her OWN policy. So, the patient is the customer of the insurer, and the insurer negotiates on behalf of their entire customer base, not just the largest employers.