"Americans consume so much healthcare that they don't need. As it turns out, this is true in a lot of places, and we have excellent evidence that's the case.
The rate of spinal surgery, for example, varies by a factor of six across the United States, but only 10% of this variation can be explained by differences in patient populations, and there is no evidence that higher rates of surgery produce better outcomes
So let's check: What happens to patients when they're heavily exposed to a strike? In terms of readmissions within 30 days and mortality... nothing, not even when you stratify by exposure level or control for the severity of patient condition!
The volume of care provided by the NHS is reduced by strikes, but not so much that patients are harmed. That means there's unnecessary care happening.
This study's conclusions, by the way, are not unique. There's actually a large literature on the effects of doctor strikes. In 2008, Cunningham et al. provided a review, in which they noted that doctor strikes with variables lengths, participation, and so on, from Jerusalem to Los Angeles had similar non-effects, or even potentially positive effects on patient mortality!
People consume too much healthcare, and it doesn't benefit them to do so. To cut costs, they could spend less. If you want to see a country like America cut its costs, you can eliminate all the inefficiencies, and then you'll still have to deal with the fact that Americans consume too much healthcare."
more:
threadreaderapp.com
x.com
Tom |
