Posted on 11/28/2005 2:24:27 PM PST by proud_yank
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. heart failure patients have a better short-term survival rate after hospital treatment than do those in Canada, perhaps because of more intensive initial treatment, a study said on Monday.
But the disparity found 30 days after treatment disappears in a year, perhaps because Canada's system provides better access to follow-up care and prescription drugs for the elderly, researchers at the University of Toronto said.
Congestive heart failure occurs when the heart cannot pump enough blood through the body, for reasons that can include narrowed arteries, high blood pressure and previous heart attacks. Patients, who become short of breath and easily tired, are often treated with drugs, put on modified diets and told to rest.
In a study published in this week's Archives of Internal Medicine, the researchers found that the death rate among heart failure patients in U.S. hospitals after 30 days was 8.9 percent compared to 10.7 percent for similar patients in Canada. While the report described that difference as significant, it found that after one year nearly a third of the patients in both groups had died.
The study involved thousands of older patients in both countries who were hospitalized from 1998 to 2001.
The authors noted that the two countries have different health care systems -- the U.S. one being market-controlled with limited government intervention while the universal single-payer Canadian system covers most physician and hospital services as well as prescription drugs for most people over 65.
The authors said earlier studies have also found that short-term advantages enjoyed by U.S. heart attack and surgery patients compared with those in Canada were lost in the long run.
"It is plausible that better short-term outcomes in the United States may relate to the intensity of hospital care, and the similar long-term outcomes between the countries may reflect better access in Canada to outpatient follow-up and prescription drugs," the report said.
The United States is just starting up a prescription drug program under Medicare, the health care system which covers people at age 65.
"Further studies are needed to explore the reasons underlying this difference in outcomes and to gain additional insights to improve the care and outcomes of heart failure patients in both countries," the study concluded.
the other lie perpetrated by this study is that it ignores the number of the Canadians who die waiting for access to medical treatment.
ping
maybe it's just harder to tell when the Canadians are alive : )
The article also states that after a year, nearly a third of all patients, American and Canadian, had died. Is that just a rumor?
Socialized medicine is for Hillary Clinton, Karl Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Need an appendectomy? Fill out Form 123456789-Sucker, then get in line. The more government gets involved in medicine, the lower the quality of health care. The United States has the best health care in the world, despite attempts by Democrats and other socialists to wreck it. They have learned nothing from the inevitable failures of the USSR and other socialist countries.
How many is that? Or perhaps that too is a myth.
And the answer is. Politics.
True, but that is the same percentage taken from each group. Both could be affected by the same variable in that respect, but in the end we come out ahead.
I wasn't clear on that so I found a link.
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/11/28/hscout529340.html
It appears that the +-32% death rate after 1 year is for all patients. My linked article also says:
"In conclusion, we found that HF patients hospitalized in the United States had significantly better short-term mortality but equivalent long-term mortality compared with a sample of HF patients hospitalized in Canada," the authors wrote.
"Further studies are needed to explore the reasons underlying this difference in outcomes and to gain additional insights to improve the care and outcomes of HF patients in both countries."
I am not necessarily opposed to having a basic 'safety net' in terms of something like health care (I do NOT mean this in a socialist sense, or the usual 'universal access' type BS), but the trying to have the govt control it and pick up the tab is insane. Especially by not allowing a private system.
'Politics' is absolutely right. Liberals love to have 100% control and have people dependent on the gubmint! What better recipe for staying in power?
On the other hand, Canada's universal healthcare system does generate lots of income for American doctors in border states.
"But the disparity found 30 days after treatment disappears in a year, perhaps because Canada's system provides better access to follow-up care and prescription drugs for the elderly, researchers at the University of Toronto said."
Or perhaps it's because within a year, most of those have already died from being on the waiting list without treatment.
This study only covers those who recieve treatment for heart problems. I wonder how much the long term numbers are effected by the ammount of triage the different systems must apply. Canadians are suffering a lot of shortages in healthcare that could lead the medical staff to limit the available care only to those with the best chances of long term survival. At the same time, US hospitals with much greater resources and profit incentives treat even the worst cases. In the short term the US hospitals better care is evident, but in the long term the higher 'quality' of the patients treated by Canada allows them to catch up in the survival statistics.
Yada yada yada. -Where do they get these morons?
The disparity converges because all of those in very bad initial condition are already dead in Canada.
Come to a Florida cardiology office and you see plenty of Canadians combining a trip to warmers climes with their medical treatment.
Total Reuters manipulated language.
They can't bring themselves to say something like
"while long-term survival rates were similar, the American health-care system has a decided advantage over the Canadian system in critical cardiac care."
Instead, they have to word the article so that it's more like "each system has its advantages".
LOL, thats why I posted it! Then again, it'd be hard to push a liberal agenda if they would word things like that.
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.