Showing posts with label industrialized nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label industrialized nations. Show all posts

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Why Are So Many White Americans Dying?


In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, we have heard much about the supposed economic angst of white working class Americans.  In addition, a study last year found that mortality rates for working class whites was falling.  America is the only advanced industrial country to see this phenomenon.  It's not happening in "Old Europe" and other modern nations.  I have my own thoughts on the matter and causation: (i) America still has the worse (and most expensive) health care system of any industrialized nation where even with health care coverage, high deductibles force many to not seek medical treatment, (ii) America has the worse social safety net of any advanced nation, (iii) Europeans have far greater job security, and (iv) despite talk of vocational training for the non-college bound, our high school fail in far too many instances to provide real, marketable vocational skills.  The results in a globalized economy are deadly.  To address these problems takes money - something Republicans refuse to spend on American citizens and, indeed, the current crop of congressional Republicans seek to cut funding for all of the above cited needs, making the prospects going forward even worse.  To them, average Americans are disposable trash.  A piece in Politico looks at the problem.  Here are highlights:
It’s a mystery with profound implications for American politics, not to mention public health: Why are so many white people dying?
When economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton released their first bombshell study in 2015, showing that mortality rates were rising for middle-aged white Americans after years of decline, the finding stunned the research world. This wasn’t a global trend—it was a distinctly American phenomenon, Case and Deaton had discovered. Among other races and age groups in Europe, mortality rates had continued to fall. But in the U.S. white people aged 45 to 54 without a college degree were dying sooner, and not from the usual suspects like heart disease and diabetes.
[W]hen Donald Trump won an upset victory in the presidential victory with a message that resonated with those same voters, many turned to Case and Deaton’s research as one possible explanation for his ascendance.
Now Deaton, who won the Nobel Prize in 2015, and Case, his wife and coauthor, are back with a new paper that aims to refine their original findings, digging into the group that’s seeing the largest increases in mortality rates: white people without college degrees, accelerated by what they call deaths of despair, or suicide, alcohol- and drug-related deaths. “Ultimately,” they write, “we see our story as about the collapse of the white, high school educated, working class after its heyday in the early 1970s, and the pathologies that accompany that decline.”
[J]ournalists and scholars have voiced concern about the spotlight on white people’s economic problems, which are still, relatively speaking, far smaller than those of, say, African-Americans.
[N]obody is disputing that the United States has a real problem as it struggles to understand the despair in communities left behind by globalization and automation. And, Case argues, the reversal of decades of progress on health among the least educated should be setting a fire under political leaders and policy wonks in both parties as they try to craft real solutions:
[W]hite non-Hispanics stopped making progress on heart disease, which is a big killer in middle age. First progress slowed, then it flatlined, and now it looks like it’s turned in the opposite direction.
[A] [high school] degree seems to be a marker for a lot of dysfunction that we’re seeing. But this new paper shows that the body count is only the tip of the iceberg. People with less than a college degree are reporting a lot more pain, much poorer health, poorer mental health. They’re less likely to be married, they’re less likely to be attached to the labor market, their wages don’t increase with age as quickly as they had in previous generations. So part two is being able to document that these things are happening in sync with each other.
And the third part is the fact that things appear to be getting worse and worse with every successive birth cohort, so that the cohort born in 1980 is having a much harder time on all those dimensions than the cohort born in 1970, who is in turn having a much harder time than the cohort born in 1960.
It used to be the case that with a high school degree, you could get a good job, with potential for on-the-job training and you could expect to have a middle-class life. You could get married, you could have a family. And the kinds of jobs a person can get now with a high school degree are not jobs where there is any up to move to.
[I]n Europe, mortality rates are falling, but they’re falling even more for people on the low end of their education distribution. Their mortality is falling faster than people on the high end of their education distribution. So what are they doing right that we’re not? That’s sort of the question right now. And again, education might just be a marker of something else, but I think it would be wise to look at how the Europeans have actually shouldered the kind of changes in the labor market. You know, they’ve lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to the far East, they’ve weathered the recession, but they haven’t seen the same kind of dysfunction and mortality increases that we’ve seen in the U.S.—so why?
Education is not necessarily what’s driving this, but it is highly correlated with all these bad outcomes that are happening to people. And I think part of that is that your high school degree gets you less far than what it used to, and when that happens, a lot of other bad things follow on.
[W]e see the prescription opioid epidemic as being an accelerant, as making this worse, but we don’t think it’s a root cause. It was happening before the heavy-duty prescription opioids hit the market. It starts at least as far back as 1990—that death rates from deaths of despair start rising—and then you throw prescription opioids into the mix, and it makes things a heck of a lot worse. But it was happening already.
There seem to be two Americas now: one for people who went to college and one for people who didn’t, and that’s going to be truer and truer, regardless of the color of your skin. Whether or not there’s enough political force to bring us back together, I’m really not sure about that.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Five Ways America's Health Care System is the Worst

Click image to enlarge
While constantly deriding the Affordable Health Care Act, the Congressional Republicans have provided no viable alternative to it and, instead want to go back to leaving the uninsured with hospital emergency rooms as their sole source of treatment.  Meanwhile, here in Virginia, the GOP is running ads claiming that Virginia cannot afford to expand Medicaid  conveniently ignoring the reality that (i) the state will be losing two billion in taxes paid to the federal government that will not return to Virginia and (ii) the 400,000 Virginians kicked to the curb will put further strain on the state's non-profit hospital systems and drive costs higher for everyone else.  Throughout all of this, the Republicans boast about America having the best health care system in the world - something that is patently not true.  At least not if one does not belong to the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans.  A piece in Vox looks at 5 ways in which America's health care system is literally the worst.  Here are highlights:
The United States comes in dead last in a new, international ranking of health care systems from a top health-care non-profit.

This doesn't mean that we're the worst in the world; there are plenty of less-developed countries that have worse systems than America's. But when the United States is compared against peer countries like France and Canada it does not come out well. It comes out the very worst.

A new Commonwealth Fund report looks at how the United States stacks up against other countries on things like access to doctors and quality of care. It pulls from three separate surveys conducted over the past three years: a 2011 survey of sicker patients, a 2012 survey of doctors and a 2013 survey of adults over 18. It also uses health outcome data from the OECD and World Health Organization. This means it captures the experience of the medical system from the people who use it a lot, those who use it a little and the doctors treating them.

The American health care system came in last both in the overall rankings, which pull together data on 11 specific measures of success for a health care system. This includes metrics like how easily residents can access health care, if that medical care is affordable and if its effective.

There was no measure where the United States came in first place — our best ranking was coming in third in the effectiveness of our medicine (more on what this means later).

In addition to coming in last overall, there were four specific measures where the United States came in last: cost-related problems, efficiency, equity and health outcomes.

Americans have the most trouble affording medical services; a higher percentage of Americans go without needed care because of cost than people surveyed in any other nation. 

Americans were almost most likely to report out-of-pocket expenses above $1,000 and to have serious problems paying their medical bills. The challenges that Americans have paying their medical bills likely stem from two unique characteristics of the health care system. First, American health care is expensive: the United States spends way more per person on health care than other industrialized nations. We have higher prices for drugs and imaging scans than other countries. 

The other part of the explanation: the United States is the only country in this study without universal coverage. 

[W]e have thousands of health insurance companies who negotiate individually with hospitals and doctors. Every knee replacement in the United States has a different price depending on what deal the insurer has set up with the provider.

This means we end up spending more than other country on the business of getting bills paid. The United States, for example, devotes 7.1 percent of total health care spending on administrative costs.  That's more than twice as much as the United Kingdom and three times as much as Australia.

The Institute of Medicine defines equity as "providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics" like income or location. The United States does not do a very good job of this. There are big gaps in how Americans with different incomes use the health-care system, with lower-earning Americans being more likely to skip recommended care. Like other measures, this reflects the high costs and insurance gaps of the American system.  

The whole goal of a health care system is to help people get healthier. The United States does spend a lot more money on health care than any other country in this survey. That could make sense if all that additional spending was leading to a better quality of life for Americans, if we lived longer, for example, or had healthier lives.
 
Unfortunately, the United States comes in dead last when ranked on healthy lives. This metric includes three basic indicators (the only ones available for cross-country comparisons). They are deaths that could have been prevented with care (we have more of those), infant mortality and life expectancy.
The take away?  Just like conservatives like to blather about imagined "American exceptionalism" so to do they ascribe to the nation's health care system characteristics that simply do not exist or which in reality fail to match the health care services available in other advanced industrial nations.  Claiming loudly that something is the best does not make it the best.