5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System

5 Myths About Canada’s Health Care System

The truth may surprise you

by: Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., M.S. | from: AARP | April 16, 2012

5 myths about Canadas' healthcare system
Health care systems differ, and there can be many myths about their pros and cons.— Photo by RK Studio/Kevin Lanthier/Getty Images

How does the U.S. health care system stack up against Canada’s? You’ve probably heard allegedly true horror stories about the Canadian system — like 340-day waits for knee replacement surgery, for example.

Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care.

How many times have you heard that Canadians, frustrated by long wait times and rationing where they live, come to the United States for medical care?

I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.

The most comprehensive study I’ve seen on this topic — it employed three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them — was published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs.

 

The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.

Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.

Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.

Myth #2: Doctors in Canada are flocking to the United States to practice.

Every time I talk about health care policy with physicians, one inevitably tells me of the doctor he or she knows who ran away from Canada to practice in the United States. Evidently, there’s a general perception that practicing medicine in the United States is much more satisfying than in Canada.

Problem is, it’s just not so. Consider this chart:

Source: “2009 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians in Eleven Countries,” The Commonwealth Fund, November 2009.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information has been tracking doctors’ destinations since 1992. Since then, 60 percent to 70 percent of the physicians who emigrate have headed south of the border. In the mid-1990s, the number of Canadian doctors leaving for the United States spiked at about 400 to 500 a year. But in recent years this number has declined, with only 169 physicians leaving for the States in 2003, 138 in 2004 and 122 both in 2005 and 2006. These numbers represent less than 0.5 percent of all doctors working in Canada.

So when emigration “spiked,” 400 to 500 doctors were leaving Canada for the United States. There are more than 800,000 physicians in the United States right now, so I’m skeptical that every doctor knows one of those émigrés. But look closely at the tan line in the following chart, which represents the net loss of doctors to Canada.

Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information

In 2004, net emigration became net immigration. Let me say that again. More doctors were moving into Canada than were moving out.

Myth #3: Canada rations health care; that’s why hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the United States.

When people want to demonize Canada’s health care system — and other single-payer systems, for that matter — they always end up going after rationing, and often hip replacements in particular.

Take Republican Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, for example. A couple of years ago he took to the House floor to tell his colleagues:

“I just hit 62, and I was just reading that in Canada [if] I got a bad hip I wouldn’t be able to get that hip replacement that [Rep. Dan Lungren] got, because I’m too old! I’m an old geezer now and it’s not worth a government bureaucrat to pay me to get my hip fixed.”

Sigh.

This has been debunked so often, it’s tiring. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for example, concluded: “At least 63 percent of hip replacements performed in Canada last year [2008] … were on patients age 65 or older.” And more than 1,500 of those, it turned out, were on patients over 85.

The bottom line: Canada doesn’t deny hip replacements to older people.

But there’s more.

Know who gets most of the hip replacements in the United States? Older people.

Know who pays for care for older people in the United States? Medicare.

Know what Medicare is? A single-payer system.

Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.

The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.

Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.

Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course. It’s this:

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

In 1966, Canada implemented a single-payer health care system, which is also known as Medicare. Since then, as a country, Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

Please understand, the wait times could be overcome. Canadians could spend more. They don’t want to. We can choose to dislike wait times in principle, but they are a byproduct of Canada’s choice to be fiscally conservative.

Yes, they chose this. In a rational world, those who are concerned about health care costs and what they mean to the economy might respect that course of action. But instead, they attack the system.

Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t.

This one’s a little bit tricky. The truth is, Canada may “ration” by making people wait for some things, but here in the United States we also “ration” — by cost.

An 11-country survey carried out in 2010 by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based health policy foundation, found that adults in the United States are by far the most likely to go without care because of cost. In fact, 42 percent of the Americans surveyed did not express confidence that they would be able to afford health care if seriously ill.

Further, about a third of the Americans surveyed reported that, in the preceding year, they didn’t go to the doctor when sick, didn’t get recommended care when needed, didn’t fill a prescription or skipped doses of medications because of cost.

Finally, about one in five of the Americans surveyed had struggled to pay or were unable to pay their medical bills in the preceding year. That was more than twice the percentage found in any of the other 10 countries.

And remember: We’re spending way more on health care than any other country, and for all that money we’re getting at best middling results.

So feel free to have a discussion about the relative merits of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. Just stick to the facts.

Aaron E. Carroll frequently blogs about this topic for The Incidental Economist and is the coauthor of Don’t Swallow Your Gum: Myths, Half-Truths, and Outright Lies About Your Body and Health.

Related

Share

Why the French election is important to us.

I remember reading Alvin Toffler’s books back on the 70s and 80s. The one thing that stuck with me was his prediction that, more and more, the world would be run by corporations, and governments and political boundaries would matter less. I think he was right, to large extent. However, I don’t believe there is some sort of world wide conspiracy behind all this, as some people believe. From The Political Coffeehouse:

“I established The Political Coffeehouse because I see that the Illuminati are steadily working to take over the world.  Back in the late 70?s and early 80?s I read the books by Alvin Toffler “Future Shock” and “The Third Wave”.  One of the key points that struck a chord with me was that Toffler predicted that the world would eventually be run, not by governments, but by corporations.  The Kings and Presidents would be replaced by CEO’s and Corporate Presidents.  At the time I thought Toffler was making predictions gleaned through the study of trends, now I realize that he made these predictions because he understood that a one world government run by bankers and corporate heads is the plan of these Illuminati elites.  They are not free market capitalist, they are vultures that will make slaves of us all and suck our very life right from our souls!”

So, to my original point. I love Ezra Klein. I had never heard of him until I saw him on the Rachel Maddow Show, where he pops up regularly as one of her stable of excellent thinkers. That’s how I found Wonkbook, and that’s where I found this particularly interesting Wonkbit today.

The Washington Post Monday, April 23, 2012
Ezra Klein’s Wonkbook

In France, the Socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, won a narrow victory in the first round of France’s presidential election. He and Nicolas Sarkozy will now move to a runoff. But Hollande will not mainly be running against Sarkozy. As his campaign manager said, the vote “is a reaction against austerity.” Hollande’s campaign platform is, in large part, a protest against austerity.”Socialist” doesn’t mean what it once did in France. Hollande’s reputation is as a man of the center-left. A compromiser. A dealmaker. And yet, markets don’t much like him. For one thing, he wants to create a 75 percent tax bracket for income over $1.3 million a year. For another, he says things like, “My true adversary…has no name, no face; he belongs to no party; he will never declare his candidacy. He will not be elected, yet he governs. My enemy is the world of finance.” (Try to imagine, by the way, a major American politician saying that.)All this makes the French election interesting. But its the effective referendum on the euro-zone project that makes it, for the United States, important. Hollande has also promised that, if elected, he will renegotiate the treaties governing the austerity targets across Europe. Some think this will doom the euro zone. Others think it’s the only way to save it. The answer matters for more than just the future of Europe. It might decide the American election, too.In an interview with my colleague Brad Plumer, Art Goldhammer, who is at Harvard’s Center for European Studies, made the optimist’s case:”If Hollande is elected and goes through with trying to renegotiate the euro zone pact, he’ll find support from countries like Spain and Italy. Spain desperately needs to do something to bring down its 25 percent unemployment rate, and Mario Monti in Italy was ostensibly put in there to implement the pro-austerity consensus, but he’s having difficulty with the country’s labor unions, and knows something needs to be done to stimulate the economy.”"So everyone outside Germany has an interest in changing things. And I think [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel has evolved on this, recognizing that an all-austerity approach isn’t going to work. But she’s facing her own election in 2013 and a substantial portion of her party doesn’t want to budge on this. So if I’m correct that she’s evolved, she has a political problem. Hollande’s election might give her some room to maneuver, by building a consensus for more pro-growth policies. Hollande’s election could be a signal of a change in thinking and influence German politics.”Goldhammer’s point on Merkel is worth taking seriously. Germany, for historical reasons, is very leery to make any major moves without the backing of France. Throughout the euro-zone effort, Merkel and Sarkozy have stood hip-to-hip. Now, to retain French support for their agenda, Germany will have to ease up on austerity and come up with a plausible growth strategy. And perhaps they will. Or perhaps they’ll decide that enough is enough, unemployment in Germany is under six percent, and it’s time to cut their losses.Hollande’s election could, in other words, permit a course correction that is already overdue in Europe. Or it could trigger a crisis that further imperils the European project and sends shockwaves of financial uncertainty over to our shores.On Saturday, Paul Krugman made the case that it’s better to gamble on a new direction that might work out rather than double down on a failing strategy. “If Sarkozy somehow pulls off an upset win,” he wrote, “it will mean more of the same European economic orthodoxy — the insistence that fiscal responsibility is the only virtue and austerity the universal answer. This orthodoxy somehow retains its grip despite overwhelming evidence that it’s wrong and disastrous failures in practice. A Hollande victory would shake things up, and offer at least the possibility of something better.”And markets may welcome that. At the very least, they should, by now, be expecting it. “Hollande’s economic program is rather clear, and both it and his chances of winning have been factored into the thinking of a lot of investors already,” Gilles Moec, co-director European economic research at Deutsche Bank, told Time. “What initially was an isolated growth position when Hollande made it earlier this year has now become the consensus in Europe–including within markets that view growth as at least important as debt reduction in overall economic outlook.”

Share

Easy read: Republican budget plans explained

I love Ezra Klein. He’s a guest host on the Rachel Maddow show and a writer for the Washington Post. He publishes something called Wonkbook which is a well written, easy to read column on what strikes his fancy each day. Most of it involves politics, and explains a lot of policies and positions clearly. Best of all, it’s not War and Peace. It’s an easy read. This section of today’s Wonkbook explains Republican budget plans and why they will hurt people who can least afford it.

The Washington Post Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Ezra Klein’s Wonkbook
I don’t think Paul Ryan intended to write a budget that concentrated its cuts on the poorest Americans. Similarly, I don’t think Mitt Romney intended to write a budget that concentrated its cuts on the poorest Americans. But there’s a reason their budgets turned out so similar: The Republican Party has settled on four overlapping fiscal commitments that leave them with few other choices.

The Republican plans we’ve seen share a few basic premises. First, taxes are too high, and must be cut. Second, defense spending is too low, and should be raised. Third, major changes to entitlement programs should be passed now, but they shouldn’t affect the current generation of retirees. That would all be fine, except for the fourth premise, which is that short-term deficits are a serious threat to the country and they need to be swiftly cut.

The first three budget premises means that taxes and defense will contribute more to the deficit, and Medicare and Social Security aren’t available for quick savings. That leaves programs for the poor as the only major programs available to bear cuts. But now cuts to those programs have to pay for the deficit reduction, the increased defense spending, and the tax cuts. That means the cuts to those programs have to be really, really, really deep. The authors have no other choice.

In Ryan’s plan, for instance, revenues are approximately $2 trillion below the levels in Obama’s budget, spending on defense is about $200 billion higher, Social Security is unchanged, and Medicare is about $200 billion lower. So that’s approximately $2 trillion in lost revenues that need to be made up — and then Ryan reaches for more than $3 trillion in deficit reduction atop that.

So the cuts to programs that mainly help the poor are correspondingly deep. The $1.5 trillion the Affordable Care Act was going to spend on subsidizing health insurance for low-income Americans is gone. But then Medicaid and other non-Medicare health programs take an $800 billion cut on top of that. Education and worker training loses $200 billion. Income security loses $800 billion. These are huge cuts.

And that’s just in the first 10 years. As time goes on, the scheduled cuts become much deeper in programs for the poor than in programs for the rich. Medicaid, for instance, is only allowed to grow at the rate of inflation, while Medicare can grow at GDP+0.5 percent, which is substantially higher. Food stamps also see their growth capped at a low rate, while Social Security is left untouched. And while Ryan does take aim at tax breaks that he says benefits the wealthy, he intends to close them and use the proceeds to fund a tax cut.

As I said at the top; I don’t take this as evidence that Paul Ryan wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. I take it as evidence that, given the set of commitments Republicans have made to their base, he didn’t really have a choice. It was the only way to make his numbers work.

But that doesn’t make the end result any different: Ryan’s budget asks for enormous sacrifice from, say, disabled Medicaid beneficiaries even as it appears to provide enormous tax benefits to wealthier Americans. The same is true for Romney’s budget, and, in even more exaggerated ways, for the fiscal promises made by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. The Republican Party has backed itself into a fiscal strategy in which this kind of concentrated sacrifice on the part of the poor is the only possible path forward.

Share

Rush Limbaugh

Well, it’s finally happened. Rush Limbaugh said the wrong thing at the right time. The Republicans have been focused on creating theater around an otherwise extremely dull candidate – Mitt Romney – in order to keep themselves in the news. Hence, the Klown Kar Kapers with Hermain Cain, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, etc., and now the the fire-and-brimstone, bible-thumping Rick Santorum. Because all these tactics have been backfiring to varying degrees, the Republicans have not been able to deal with the rising tide of scorn and dislike their performances generate. In another year, Rush’s comments would probably have generated some reaction and then died. But not this year. The comments have touched a nerve and coalesced women and pro-female men into action against the right wing attack on health care. The religious angle, the anti-woman angle is all a smokescreen for the real agenda, which is to give anybody who provides health care the right to withhold it from anybody – male or female. But by pursuing the religious, anti-woman angle, they made a mistake. Which, coupled with what Rush said and has apologized for, has started a reaction that will be hard to counter. I don’t think this will cost Rush his job, but it has certainly lessened his clout within the Republican party. I’m loving it all!

Here’s a great essay about the whole thing from Media Matters with lots of embedded links. It’s well written and worth a read.

Limbaugh And The Right-Wing Nervous Breakdown

March 05, 2012 9:45 am ET by Eric Boehlert

It turns out that even in cases of emergency, the GOP Noise Machine has no off switch.

Republicans learned that painful lesson as the Rush Limbaugh “slut” fiasco made headlines for days on end. With the Voice of the Republican Party engulfed in one of the most damaging (and self-inflicted) controversies of his career, and with parts of the GOP Noise Machine scrambling to actually defend Limbaugh, as well as to echo his misogynist taunts, it’s been the larger conservative movement that has been absorbing the worst blows.

For a Republican Party already suffering from a yawning gender gap, Limbaugh’s hijacking of thenews cycle last week must have been unwelcome news. But this is what happens when Republicans sponsor an irresponsible media Noise Machine that’s designed to offend and attack and is designed to dehumanize its political enemies. This is what happens when the wheels fall off in spectacular fashion, like Limbaugh spending three days smearing, by name, a Georgetown University Law School student as greedy nymphomaniac having so much sex “it’s amazing she can still walk.”

It’s no secret Republican leaders live in fear of Limbaugh and over the years have found it almost impossible to publicly criticize even his most outlandish and hateful statements. Those few who did stop forward were often forced to then quickly reversed course and apologize to Limbaugh. Just like Republicans have had to bow down to kingmakers at Fox News and embrace their lowest common denominator programming.

The truth is the conservative movement in America has become a media-based one, delegating an absurd amount of influence to bloggers, cable channels and talk show hosts. In turn, that movement suffered a collective collapse last week. Incapable of self-reflection, player after player, including those at Fox News, rushed forward to condemn the law student and/or to insist the AM talker had done nothing wrong by, A) insulting the young woman, B) mocking her parents C) demanding she post videos of herself having sex online, and D) suggesting she was using condoms when she was in elementary school.

Large portions of the right-wing media complex saw nothing wrong with that kind of behavior; saw nothing wrong with the 53 bullying smears Limbaugh unloaded on the student in front of his national radio audience. Not only did they defend Limbaugh, they lashed out at anyone who suggested the titan talker lacked common sense. And then they stomped on Sandra Fluke’s reputation some more.

A sample of the swill:

-Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin denounced Fluke as a “femme-agogu tool.”

-The right-wing site Jawa Report  illustrated a post about Fluke with a picture of a tattoo that reads ”Semen Demon.”

-Pam Geller wrote that Fluke is “banging it five times a day” and that “calling this whore a slut was a softball.”

-Accuracy in Media’s Don Irvine called her a “skank.”

-Former CPAC Blogger of The Year, Ace of Spades, called Fluke a “shiftless rent-a-cooch from East Whoreville.”

-Michelle Malkin guest blogger Doug Ross used “Got Slut?” in a headline and suggested Fluke suffered from “nymphomania.”

-Dana Loesch complained the controversy surrounding Limbaugh’s three-day “slut” campaign represented a “manufactured” story. (This, before Limbaugh responded to the “manufactured” story by issuing a rare public statement.)

This is nuts. (What word would you choose?) A law student testifies about contraception and within days conservative commentators are sprinting towards their microphones and keyboards in order to find ways to call her a slutty, semen demon?

That’s what a nervous breakdown looks like and that’s what has been broadcast across AM talk radio, Fox News and the Internet since last Wednesday.

Some conservative voices did acknowledge the errors of Limbaugh’s ways and condemned Republicans for cozying up to him.Wall Street Journalist Peggy Noonan called his performance “crude, rude, even piggish.” And on ABC’s This Week, George Will coined Sunday’s best phrase when he pointed out Republicans leaders “want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”

Washington Post editorial suggested that, “For the good of U.S. political culture — or at least its own political self-interest — the GOP must distance itself from Mr. Limbaugh.” But few members tried, even timidly, to do the right thing.

Ron Paul dismissed Limbaugh’s misogynist taunts as being a “little crude,” Rep. John Boenher gently chastised the talk show host for using “inappropriate” language, and Mitt Romney said simply that Limbaugh’s brutal name-calling didn’t include “the language I’d use.”

The Republican Party years ago made a Faustian bargain with the right-wing Noise Machine. And now it’s paying the price.

Blogger Tod Kelly made this observation in the wake of Limbaugh’s “slut” debacle:

The people behind the people in the GOP aren’t idiots. They know perfectly well that this whole battle on contraception is going to kill them in a few months; they certainly know that the Right’s most visible pundits lamely and uncomfortably trying to rally around Limbaugh is especially bad news for them.

Republicans know this “slut” controversy has been a disaster for them politically, yet they were powerless to do anything about it. Powerless to stop it.

That’s because Republicans can’t turn off the Noise Machine, even when it’s in the throes of a nervous breakdown.

Share