U.S. Healthcare By The Numbers

Currently, the major driver behind the push for healthcare reform in the United States is cost. Few would argue that the price of healthcare in the U.S. is bordering on the ridiculous. In fact, the U.S. spends more than twice as much on healthcare — approximately $2.5 trillion a year — than other developed countries. However, many opponents of the healthcare reform packages suggested to date argue vehemently that these plans pose serious risks to the quality of healthcare delivered in the U.S. There seems to be a confidence — dare I say arrogance — among these detractors that the level of care delivered in the U.S. is far superior to that of other countries. Well, recent statistics provide evidence to the contrary.

U.S. Lags Behind In Life Expectancy, Infant Mortality
For example, one of the biggest arguments against President Obama's proposed healthcare reform plan is that it will have a negative impact on the elderly. This plan calls for cost-based considerations to be added to Medicare authorization processes for certain medical treatments. Also, the Federal Council would, in many instances, influence these decisions. This practice, modeled after a process followed in the United Kingdom, has quite expectedly aroused concern in our care for the elderly under healthcare reform. However, you could also question how well we care for the elderly under our current healthcare system. For instance, the U.S. currently ranks 50th out of 244 nations in life expectancy, with an average life span of 78.1 years. That's behind countries such as Andorra, Guernsey, and Anguilla. Now, I don't know about you, but I've never even heard of these countries. As for the U.K.? It ranked 36th, with a life expectancy of 79. While healthcare reform protesters may not agree with the U.S. adopting a cost-conscious medical treatment formula similar to that of the U.K., they can't argue with the fact that the elderly in the U.K. live longer than U.S. senior citizens.

Now several, non-healthcare related, factors — such as diet and stress — may ultimately be the cause for the relatively low life expectancy in the U.S. when compared to other developed countries. However, studies also suggest a direct link between publicly financed healthcare and increased life expectancy. For example, a 2008 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that with the implementation of the Taiwan single payer systems, gain in life expectancy was slightly faster in the 10 years after reform than the 10 years prior to reform. Some argue that life expectancy doesn't rise as fast in countries where individuals pay for their own care because people are less likely to seek treatment until their symptoms have become serious and there is less emphasis placed on preventative care.

To get a better idea of the quality of healthcare in the U.S., perhaps we should look at a statistic that arguably is affected less by lifestyle decisions — infant mortality. According to the report from the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. currently ranks 30th in terms of infant mortality rate. Once again, the U.S. ranks behind most industrialized countries such as Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel. The troubling infant mortality rate in the U.S. is largely being attributed to the high percentage of preterm births experienced in our borders. For example, 1 in 8 births in the U.S. are currently born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 births in Ireland and Finland. This represents a 36% increase in preterm births in the U.S. since 1984.

Can Technology Help Strengthen Our Healthcare Weaknesses?
Now, I'm not naive enough to think that this article will change any perceptions on Capitol Hill, but I'll stand on my soapbox and say that we're not receiving nearly the quality of care that we should be for our $2.5 trillion annual spend. The healthcare system is broken, and it needs to be fixed, and fixed fast. Furthermore, we need to be less sensitive about how we change our current healthcare system. Based on the statistics presented in this article, other industrialized countries have more successful models than ours that we can follow. The numbers clearly show that our way is not producing the best results.

I'm hopeful that political differences will be set aside sooner rather than later and the U.S. will land on an healthcare reform package that's agreeable to both parties. Once we do, I feel technology will play an even larger role in improving our country's quality of care. This will not only come from a transition to EHRs (electronic health records) that will facilitate the exchange of patient information between healthcare facilities, but from other technology solutions as well. For example, last week I wrote about the promise of Telehealth applications in the U.S. Obama's stimulus package includes $6 billion in telehealth incentives. Think about how solutions in this category — such as remote health monitoring devices and biosensors — can help keep physicians up-to-date on the conditions of their chronically ill elderly patients, supporting increased life expectancy. Similarly, think about how infant tracking and monitoring solutions can positively impact infant mortality rates. These technologies are all available today, and have been implemented by some healthcare facilities with great success. However, healthcare reform may be what is necessary to make these technologies commonplace, or even standard, across our healthcare system.