A Little Sicko FYI

A great deal is made of the World Health Organization’s ranking of health outcomes showing the U.S. severely lagging compared to the rest of the world. I’m sure it will come as no surprise that I’m even more skeptical of those statistics than I am those that come out of our Bureau of Labor Statistics – which I pretty well take as organized manipulation of data and the definition of moving the goal posts. As Mark Twain said, “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

The measuring tools that the WHO uses are statistics reported from the countries’ own data collection sources. And, as far as a countries willingness to whitewash data, it’s not a stretch that Cuba has more of propensity to do so than even the U.S.

Humberto Fontova has an important article over at LewRockwell.com that points out some important facts that worshipers of Micheal Moore might want to consider:

This current infant-mortality rate, by the way, is also kept artificially low by an abortion rate of 0.71, the Hemisphere’s (and hovering among the world’s top five for the past two decades) highest, which “terminates” any pregnancy that even hints at trouble. Cuba’s suicide rate is also currently the Hemisphere’s highest, triple its rate during the unspeakable Batista era.

[...]

The U.N.’s World Health Organization has a fetish for infant-mortality figures, regarding them as the be-all and end-all of nation’s health index. As such, Castro, whose fiefdom was awarded a prestigious UNESCO award in 2000 – is absolutely anal (Ha-Ha!) in reporting carefully doctored (shall we say) figures on Cuba’s infant-mortality rate to the WHO. And Michael Moore Sicko relies on these U.N. figures exclusively.

In April 2001 Dr. Juan Felipe García MD, of Jacksonville, Florida, interviewed several recent doctor defectors from Cuba. Based on what he heard his report may discomfit some Sicko fans. “The official Cuban infant-mortality figure is a farce,” asserts Dr. Garcia. “Cuban pediatricians constantly falsify figures for the regime. If an infant dies during its first year the doctor often reports he was older. Otherwise such lapses could cost him severe penalties and his job.”

[...]

According to a report by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the mortality rate of Cuban children aged 1 to 4 is 34% higher than the U.S. (11.8 versus 8.8 per 1000). But these don’t figure into U.N.-spotlighted “infant-mortality rates,” you see. So apparently the pressure (so far) is not on Cuban doctors to fudge these figures.

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons also reports that the current maternal mortality rate in Cuba is almost FOUR TIMES the U.S. rate (33 versus 8.4 per 1000). Peculiar (and tragic) how so many mothers die during childbirth in Cuba? And how many 1–4 year olds perish, while from birth to one year old (the period during which they qualify in U.N. statistics as infants) they’re perfectly healthy?

Then of course is the apples to oranges problem that come with self reported numbers. According to U.S. News & World Report the WHO figures are suspect:

First, it’s shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

Infant mortality in developed countries is not about healthy babies dying of treatable conditions as in the past. Most of the infants we lose today are born critically ill, and 40 percent die within the first day of life. The major causes are low birth weight and prematurity, and congenital malformations. As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

It’s seems that our practice of keeping babies alive, at any cost, costs us a great deal of standing in the world. Maybe we better cut that out to chum the numbers.

Then, of course, we’re singled out by our poor showing in overall life expectancy. But a lot of things go into that – not the least of which is our abnormally high murder rates associated with the war on drugs.
As Radly Balko says:

Homicide. Most homicide victims are young, between 16 and 30. And let’s face it, we’re a pretty bloody country. Now I realize this sort of plays into world stereotypes about us, but I’d submit that a big reason we have so much bloodshed in this country is not that we have too much freedom (as the Guardian article suggests), but that we don’t have enough. I’m referring to the particularly militant approach we take to drug prohibition, which as I think this graph makes pretty clear, tends to drive homicides up. There are about 20,000 annual homicides in the U.S. Another 30,000 suicides. The average homicide victim lives less than a third of the annual life expectancy.

What’s most striking to me is the absolute leadership we have in treating cancer. Somehow, too, this is left out of the WHO data. Michael C. Moynihan at H&R has an interesting posts where he quotes from the Guardian:

Cancer survival rates in Britain are among the lowest in Europe, according to the most comprehensive analysis of the issue yet produced.

England is on a par with Poland despite the NHS spending three times more on health care.

Survival rates are based on the number of patients who are alive five years after diagnosis and researchers found that, for women, England was the fifth worst in a league of 22 countries. Scotland came bottom. Cancer experts blamed late diagnosis and long waiting lists.

In total, 52.7pc of women survived for five years after being diagnosed between 2000 and 2002. Only Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Czech Republic and Poland did worse. Just 44.8pc of men survived, putting England in the bottom seven countries.

Anyone else notice who sits atop the heap?

As for the uninsured? Well, I recently read that of the 45 million or so that are not covered about 30% of those are actually eligible for public aid but, for what ever reason, haven’t signed up and another 30% are illegal immigrants. A huge portion of the remaining balance are young adults – many of whom simply choose not to have coverage in line with the youthful sense of immortality.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve written a great deal about how screwed up our health care system is – mostly from the standpoint of economic fairness. But the next time someone throws out our poor WHO ranking I will have no choice to think that there’s a lot more to be discussed and using bad statistics to change public policy is foolish and, at times, dishonest.

[Update] I was a bit off on my recollection about the uninsured. Here’s what John Stossel wrote about it:

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people — 45 million — without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007 at 8:05 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.