Posted on 12/07/2003 10:07:59 AM PST by Isara
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Health Care: Hospitals everywhere tend to be dirty places, but in Britain they tend to be downright lethal. Should we blame this on nationalized health care?
It would be shortsighted not to place some of the culpability on Britain's socialist medical system. Nationalized health care, no matter how swell its supporters think it is, is afflicted with the same institutional flaw that plagues all collectivist systems: It lacks the proper incentives necessary to ensuring quality performance.
In Britain, home of the National Health Service, the media are reporting that 5,000 patients die a year from hospital-acquired infections that contribute to another 15,000 annual deaths. Many more than that just get sick.
The cause is a failure of public hospitals to meet even the most basic hygiene and sanitation standards. One anesthetist who works at both private and NHS hospitals says that while private facilities close down operating rooms every six months for a deep cleaning followed by testing for bacteria, that practice is "never done" in "my NHS hospital."
The British press has also reported that, for other reasons, "patients who have major surgery in Britain are four times more likely to die than those in America," according to a study done by University College London and New York's Columbia University.
One of the researchers explained that the disparity could be attributed to "a difference in the systems of care."
He's right, of course. In Britain, there is a shortage of specialists, typical in government-run systems. The British also have to endure waiting lists, another hallmark of socialist health care.
While medical care in Britain appears to be, at best, stagnant and, at worst, declining, the level of care in the U.S., where medicine is primarily in the domain of the private sector, is improving.
We admit that U.S. health care costs are often too high. But that's largely a result of government intrusion into the marketplace.
Where left alone, though, health care in the U.S. is always moving ahead. The profit motive in a free market provides incentives for companies to expand medical technology and develop medications, for students to choose medical school and for doctors to remain in practice.
It should be obvious that the free market system is far superior to a system hijacked by the government. Yet there is wide support for the U.S. to adopt a health care system that's run by the state. It's a puzzle that makes us wonder how something so glaring can be missed so spectacularly.
Pretty scary!
That always ends the conversation because there's no come-back to that statement.
The chief reason people like socialized health care is the *equality*--everyone has equally good and equally bad care. This is an enormous comfort to most people. And the rich can always go to the US or fancy Swiss hospitals.
In this country, 'hospital aquired' infection is defined as any infection aquired within 30 days of hospitalization. An infection control nurse, employed by the hospital, calls doctor's offices after the patient is discharged from a surgical admission to determine if patients have been seen with post operative wound infections. This data is collected and is important, along with other indicators in accrediting the hospital by JCAHO. One can easily see though, that such data is subject to reporting bias.
It is unknown to me how vigorously the data is collected in Britain, or what the incentives there are for reporting it.
The bottom line is that care should be exercised in drawing any conclusions regarding cross border comparisons of hospital infection rates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.