Billboards Showing ER Wait Times Appear In Tampa Bay Area

Yeah, I dunno Brother - the WHO tends to be the authority on global H.


You can't just harr harr harr dem ninjas r po.


Da facts is facts.

I find it mildly amusing that you say, "da facts is facts" using "facts" that are based 2/3 on subjective questions and parameters. A country that has an awful healthcare system, limited equipment, limited resources, no substantive medical industry (all of those countries listed) will rank higher than the US simply because everyone has equal access to crappy healthcare than a place like the US where there is stratification on access to care. Even though your average uninsured person has BETTER ACCESS to care and BETTER QUALITY of that care than immigrants in the United Arab Emirates.
 
I find it mildly amusing that you say, "da facts is facts" using "facts" that are based 2/3 on subjective questions and parameters. A country that has an awful healthcare system, limited equipment, limited resources, no substantive medical industry (all of those countries listed) will rank higher than the US simply because everyone has equal access to crappy healthcare than a place like the US where there is stratification on access to care. Even though your average uninsured person has BETTER ACCESS to care and BETTER QUALITY of that care than immigrants in the United Arab Emirates.

Serious post is serious.
 
But they're rated Excellant or Good that is the point. I think that hospitals should have roughly similiar death rates otherwise it shows that some hospitals are underperforming than others. But the main point is that it was the hospitals self-regulating themselves, so what do you expect? To rate themselves as poor?

No, even if they had similar death rates, you'd still have a category called "10 worst death rates". Even if all the hospitals were excellent and had similar death rates, you'd still have the statistic "10 worst death rates".
 
Nope went to Lymington Hospital in south of England - with a broken finger. Had to wait at least 2 hours for any treatment from doctors. Don't trust the NHS remember they are "self-regulators" so they tickbox everything which is good. For instance recently the 10 hospitals with the worst death rates in England were given "Excellant" or "Good" by the government. Don't trust the government itis the bigggest corporation of the lot constantly wanting to increase its power, increase taxes, force your kids to take sex ed and take away your guns (well they already have bizarely). This new labour government is notoriously good at hiding away the true statistics and facts from the population - to try and show that it is an effective force.

So I'm not listening to any "official" statistic. It has been massaged almost as much as a Maoist Commuist party officiall during the Great Leap Forward.

Does it occur to you that training hospitals and centres of excellence will have the best consultants and also perform all the most innovative procedures and have the most difficult patients transferred to them? Therefore in a well run system the best hospitals should have the highest death rates as they will have the most challenging patients.

By your logic a little cottage hospital that is little more than a glorified GP's surgery - with a single ward and a couple of private rooms for local patients with non-critical problems - is the best hospital in the country because it has a zero percent fatality rate. But it only has a zero percent fatality rate because any patient with a life threatening condition is sent to a bigger hospital.

This is especially true in the UK where not only are most of the hospitals fairly close together but are run by the NHS. Indeed if something goes horribly wrong with your private operation they will stick you in an ambulance to the nearest training hospital and let the NHS patch up their mess.
 
Does it occur to you that training hospitals and centres of excellence will have the best consultants and also perform all the most innovative procedures and have the most difficult patients transferred to them? Therefore in a well run system the best hospitals should have the highest death rates as they will have the most challenging patients. - GinandTonic

Ya know, I don't ever remember you using this argument to defend American infant mortality rates.
 
That doesn't answer the question. And the objection is a decent one.
Transfers within a group will create statistics that seem bad, but might not be.
 
I love the smell of willful ignorance in the morning.

That doesn't answer the question. And the objection is a decent one.
Transfers within a group will create statistics that seem bad, but might not be.

That was the point I was making.

Unless their was significant transfer into or out of the US of critical/ terminal babies the data for the US would not be affected.
 
Is it a reference to illegal immigrants?
Or a reference to having greater poverty levels decreasing outcomes?

Those, I think, make sense (though would have to be shown, merely than asserted).
 
Is it a reference to illegal immigrants?
Or a reference to having greater poverty levels decreasing outcomes?

Those, I think, make sense (though would have to be shown, merely than asserted).

While they may go some way to explaining poor results for US healthcare they would not, as Merkin would have to be implying for his post to make any sense, demonstrate a unique strain on the US system that justified the gulf in results.

Indeed one could very well point out that under the NHS since illegal immigrants have the same level of health care as the rest of the population such a discrepancy of outcomes would be almost completely mitigated. Therefore if an ilegial in the US has a far higher infant mortality rate than an ilegial in the UK that is completely, and fairly, part of the data for infant mortality rates in those countries.

For his point to be valid there would have to be a vast traffic of pregnancies with complications and/ or critical newborns into the US on a constant basis, and one significantly greater than that experienced by other developed countries.

EDIT - If the difference between US and UK infant mortality is about 2 per thousand vis c. 4m births a year in the US so thats 8,000 extra deaths. If the difficult pregnancies/ critical babies being introduced to the US had a 20% fatality rate we would require around 40,000 more cases to be introduced to the US each year than to the UK.
 
That doesn't answer the question. And the objection is a decent one.
Transfers within a group will create statistics that seem bad, but might not be.

Okay, let's rewrite the statement in terms that I was talking about before willful ignorance entered the debate:

Does it occur to you that healthcare system and centres of excellence of neonatal care will have the best consultants and also perform all the most innovative procedures and have the most difficult patients transferred to them? Therefore in a well run system the best hospitals should have the highest death rates in terms of neo-natal care as they will have the most challenging patients.

Ironically, this is the primary reason why America has such high "infant mortality rates."
 
For his point to be valid there would have to be a vast traffic of pregnancies with complications and/ or critical newborns into the US on a constant basis, and one significantly greater than that experienced by other developed countries. - GinandTonic

Or, just different standards of what constitutes a live birth. It's like I told you in the other thread, if we judged live births by the NHS standard, we'd rank right side by side with Norway because HALF of our infant deaths come from premature babies that your system doesn't consider a live birth if they die. In fact, our system of "infant death" includes purposefully aborted babies that are born alive.
 
Okay, let's rewrite the statement in terms that I was talking about before willful ignorance entered the debate:

Does it occur to you that healthcare system and centres of excellence of neonatal care will have the best consultants and also perform all the most innovative procedures and have the most difficult patients transferred to them? Therefore in a well run system the best hospitals should have the highest death rates in terms of neo-natal care as they will have the most challenging patients.

Ironically, this is the primary reason why America has such high "infant mortality rates."

Utter drivel. There is no connection between the stages of your logic. The whole population of the US is by definition part of the data set for US infant mortality, and therefore it is irrelevant to the US figures as a whole which hospital they are treated at. It is relevant to the figures of the individual hospitals but unless there is transfer from outside the area the figures define it is irrelevant to the figures for the area as a whole.

If you cannot comprehend this fact you do not understand the basis of statistics.
 
It isn't so much an issue of how statistics are collected, although that is part of it. It is really more an issue of why there are so many premature births in the US compared to any other country:

http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...03/cdc-finds-us-30th-in-infant-mortality.html

CDC Finds U.S. 30th in Infant Mortality

Finding is attributed to country's high rate of premature births

TUESDAY, Nov. 3 (HealthDay News) -- When comparing rates of infant mortality, the United States lags dismally behind most other developed countries, largely because of a disproportionately high number of babies delivered prematurely, according to a new government report.

"The U.S. in 2005 ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality," said Marian F. MacDorman, a statistician at the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics and lead author of a data brief the agency released Tuesday. "The main cause of the high infant mortality rate is the very high percentage of preterm births in the U.S."

Dr. Alan Fleischman, medical director at the March of Dimes, said the finding "is an indictment of the way we deliver health care in the United States, and it's a reiteration of prematurity as the No. 1 public health problem in America."

"This gives us direct evidence that the extraordinary prematurity rate in the U.S. directly impacts on infant death," Fleischman said.

Dr. James M. Greenberg, director of neonatology at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Research Foundation, agreed with that conclusion, but added that infant mortality "also includes things like deaths from child abuse and from infectious diseases during the first 12 months of life."

In the United States in 2004, one in eight babies was born prematurely, compared with one in 18 in Ireland and Finland.

"Once a baby is born preterm, we do a good job of saving it," MacDorman said. "What we're not successful at is preventing preterm birth in the first place."

Fleischman seemed to agree. "The quality of neonatal intensive care is superb," he said. "We know how to rescue babies who are born very tiny, but what we don't do well is prevent prematurity."

Reasons for this, he said, include a lack of universal access to health care for women of childbearing age or pregnant women of any age. "That's a tremendous difference with our European friends," Fleischman said.

There's also not enough attention on social and behavioral factors that affect prematurity, such as smoking and alcohol and drug use, he said.


After declining for several years, U.S. infant mortality rates have stagnated since 2000. Early births, however, have risen 36 percent since 1984.

According to the new report, the United States had an infant mortality rate in 2005 of 6.86 deaths per 1,000 live births. However, 22 countries had mortality rates of 5 per 1,000 births or lower, and the rate was 3.0 or lower in Sweden, Finland, Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Differences in the way births are reported, however, could affect some of the data, according to the authors of the report.

If statistics exclude births that occur at less than 22 weeks gestation, the infant mortality rate for the United States in 2004 would be 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, the authors said.

That rate would still be nearly double the infant mortality rate for Sweden and Norway.


If the number of early births was the same, however, the U.S. infant mortality rate would plummet to 3.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, according to the report.

"The suggestion that we would decrease the number of deaths by 33 percent if our gestational age distribution was similar to Sweden is a dramatic way of pointing out this is really serious," Fleischman said.

Though many experts see infant mortality -- along with life expectancy -- as a critical indicator of how a society's health care is doing in general, Dr. Harold Perl, a neonatologist at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey said he thinks it's a "terrible tool."

Figures such as those in the government report don't take into account whether a country, for instance, allows termination of pregnancy if a fetus has a lethal congenital defect, he said, which could skew the infant mortality figures down.

"The numbers need to be drilled down to make sure we're not comparing apples and oranges," Perl said.
 
Merkinball said:
if we judged live births by the NHS standard, we'd rank right side by side with Norway because HALF of our infant deaths come from premature babies that your system doesn't consider a live birth if they die.

USNews said:
Differences in the way births are reported, however, could affect some of the data, according to the authors of the report.

If statistics exclude births that occur at less than 22 weeks gestation, the infant mortality rate for the United States in 2004 would be 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, the authors said.

That rate would still be nearly double the infant mortality rate for Sweden and Norway.

Not to mention still 25% higher than the NHS.
 
Okay, let me expound now that I have some more information at my side:

The problem with infant mortality rate lies in he incredible disparity in the ways by which the statistic is measured around the world. For example, while 40% of America's infant mortality rate is attributed to infants who die on the day of their birth, some countries don't "reliably register" those deaths at all. In the US, a baby that shows any sign of life whatsoever is counted as a live birth, but other countries use the standard of "size" or "weight" to determine whether a birth is live or not.

US World Report: "In Austria and Germany, the fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1pound) 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 lifeless."

Further more, the OECD specifically warns against infant mortality rates for the precise same reason.

Very preterm babies, characterized by births less than 32 weeks, and die about 30 times the average, account for more than half of all US infant deaths. Once you adjust for birthrate (that most European nations have far easier standards and measures) the US ends up with an infant mortality rate equal to Norway.

Citations:

"Behind the Baby Count" US News and World Report, September 24th, 2006
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "Infant Mortality" in OECD health data 2007, (Paris Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2008)
Maryan F McDorman, PhD, and TJ Matthews MS, Recent Trends in Infant Mortality in the US, , NCHS Data brief NO. 9, (Hyattsville MD, National Center for Health Statistics, 2008.

It is really more an issue of why there are so many premature births in the US compared to any other country: - Formaldahyde

Increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse, physical abuse, smoking, and primarily increased use of invitro-fertilization.
 
Increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse, physical abuse, smoking, and primarily increased use of invitro-fertilization.
Brought to you, in part, by a failure of the U.S. healthcare system to convince Americans to abstain from such unhealthy practices.
 
Gin said:
Does it occur to you that training hospitals and centres of excellence will have the best consultants and also perform all the most innovative procedures and have the most difficult patients transferred to them? Therefore in a well run system the best hospitals should have the highest death rates as they will have the most challenging patients.

Merkin said:
Ya know, I don't ever remember you using this argument to defend American infant mortality rates.

How does the issue of hospital transfers relate to the issue?

That was your assertion, so defend it or withdraw.

The rest is a chewbacca defence with no relation to your assertion.
 
Increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse, physical abuse, smoking, and primarily increased use of invitro-fertilization.
That is certainly part of the reason as the article I posted stated. However, it is by far from being the only reasons as you allege. You apparently forgot to mention lack of medical insurance, the increased number of cesareans prior to 39 weeks' gestation, and that insufficient research has been done to fully explain the phenomenon:

http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...-scores-a-d-on-preterm-birth-report-card.html

TUESDAY, Nov. 17 (HealthDay News) -- The United States is doing a poor job of reducing preterm births, according to a new report, which found Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana have especially high numbers of early, life-threatening deliveries.

Vermont and New Hampshire were the only states with a preterm birth rate under 10 percent, while in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, the premature birth rate ranged from 16.5 to 18.3 percent.

Each year, the March of Dimes ranks each state according to its rate of premature births -- babies born before 37 weeks of gestation. Preterm births contribute to infant mortality and can put children at risk for lifelong problems, including cerebral palsy and developmental disabilities.

The U.S. premature birth rate was 12.7 percent in 2007 (the year the birth data was collected), nearly twice the goal of 7.6 percent set by the federal government's Healthy People 2010 campaign.

In the March of Dimes report, states were graded on how closely they came to meeting the preterm birth objective. No state earned an "'A" and Vermont was the only state to earn a "B" grade. All the rest earned grades ranging from "C" to "F" and the nation overall earned a "D" grade.

Still, it wasn't all bad news. Seven states -- Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, Idaho, Massachusetts, Utah and Wisconsin -- improved their grade year over year. However, Ohio's and Oklahoma's grades dropped.

"This year, we found a slight reduction in the rate of preterm birth," said Jennifer Howse, March of Dimes president. "Overall, that's encouraging. But as any good epidemiologist will tell you, one year does not a trend make."

Howse said she was concerned that the recession, including job losses and loss of medical benefits, could reverse the trend when the birth statistics from 2008 and 2009 are analyzed. "I think we're moving in the right direction, but I am worried we are going to see slippage," Howse said.

The states that improved did so by targeting three key risk factors for premature birth: smoking during pregnancy, lack of health insurance for pregnant women, and elective inductions or cesarean sections done during the "late pre-term," or between 34 to 36 weeks' gestation. The March of Dimes recommends babies not be delivered by elective C-section or induction before 39 weeks.

Lack of health insurance keeps some women from getting prenatal care, which means health conditions that could affect the pregnancy, such as underlying infections, obesity, poor nutrition, diabetes, high blood pressure and periodontal disease, are less likely to be caught and treated.


About 33 states and the District of Columbia reduced the number of women of childbearing age who smoke; 21 states and Washington, D.C. insured more women year over year; while 27 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico lowered the late pre-term birth rate.

Though the target areas are important, Howse said physicians still don't know all of the reasons why babies are born prematurely.

"We probably understand roughly half the risks that are associated with preterm birth, but the other half are very poorly understood from a biological standpoint," Howse said


Dr. Harold Perl, a senior neonatologist at Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, N.J., said that physicians in the United States are very skilled at taking care of premature babies after they are born, but more emphasis needs to be placed on preventing premature births in the first place.

"Overall, it's a very important point that the March of Dimes is making," Perl said. "We have to look not only at how well we take care of our premature babies, but what we can do to prevent mothers from having premature babies."

The report didn't explore some significant geographic variations in causes for preterm birth factors that need to be considered when designing education or intervention programs, Perl said. New Jersey and Missouri, for example, had roughly the same rate of premature births, 12.7 percent and 12.5 respectively.

But in Missouri, about 28.4 percent of expectant mothers smoked, ranking it among the states with the highest maternal smoking rates, compared to 12.8 percent in New Jersey, ranking it among the lowest.

In New Jersey, a key reason for premature births is the number of twins, triplets and higher-order multiples being born as a result of in vitro fertilization procedures, Perl said. Twins are delivered on average, at about 35 weeks, triplets at 33 weeks, and quadruplets at 29 weeks, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Perl recommends fertility doctors follow American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines that call for implanting no more than two embryos at a time for women under 35, and no more than three for women with poorer chances of becoming pregnant.

About 540,000 babies are born prematurely in the United States each year, costing more than $26 billion in additional health care costs.

It's one of the reasons that the United States is ranked 30th in infant mortality, behind most other developed nations, according to a U.S. National Center for Health Statistics report issued earlier this month. Premature births have risen 36 percent since 1984, according to the report.
 
Back
Top Bottom