In other words, of the studies surveyed, some showed slightly better outcomes for the Canadian system and some showed slightly better outcomes for the U.S. approach, making it hard to draw any conclusion other than that, on balance, the two systems seem to yield only slightly different outcomes.

Money Doesn't Necessarily Buy Health

The study's authors highlight the fact that per capita spending on health care is 89 percent higher in the U.S. than in Canada. "One thing that people generally know is that the administration costs are much higher in the U.S.," Groome notes. Indeed, one study by Woolhandler published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 found that 31 percent of spending on health care in the U.S. went to administrative costs, whereas Canada spent only 17 percent on the same functions.

Ho believes, however, that there are also inefficiencies in the Canadian system. In her own work on hip fracture, she found that Canadian hospitals held patients for longer periods because there was no incentive to discharge them. "These patients are easier to take care of," she explains, "and that helps [hospital administrators] justify their budget…. I think there is room for economic incentives [in the Canadian system]."

"Personally," Ho adds, "my view is that the Canadian system is good for Canada and the American system is good for America. Neither side should switch, because the systems are a function of the population—the Canadian population believes much more in maintaining social safety nets."

This research may already be having an impact on policy debate: According to Woolhandler, Ohio democratic congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has plans to circulate the results of this study to Congress. Woolhandler herself would like to see this study play a part in a slightly different debate—one over whether it it is better to be sick and insured in the U.S. or in Canada. "I'd like to see politicians giving up on this mythology that the quality of care for sick people in the U.S. is unique."

3 Comments

1. 1. JeffreyCharlesArcher 01:17 AM 11/2/08

   It is clearly time for the United States to begin to take care of it's citizens with a comparable degree of concern as the rest of the wealthy nations of the world. It dosen't matter if you needn't wait as long in the United States for hip surgery if you cannot be admitted to a reasonably good facility because you can't afford their pricetag. Sure, if you are filthy rich or have a job with good health are coverage, the U.S. system is fine. A very large portion of people living in the United States do not have such a status, and thus when a situation arises requiring exensive proceedures, even if these can find a means to get care, they are often financially crippled for years to come. What I am writing is obvious, and ought to have prompted a truly representative body of government to act to represent the needs of their constituents--and not just their campaign contributors. I sincerely hope that the likely shift in government will open the door to a shift to universal health care coverage so everyone who has the need can get the care they deserve, and without destroying their finances for the rest of what life has been extended.
   Jeffrey Charles Archer
   Laramie, Wyoming

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. lightblue 04:53 PM 7/4/12

   The "study" is in response to a growing outcry in Canada about the failure of their health care system and , as the article states, the continuing pressure by Canadians desiring to move to a for profit health care system as practiced in the U.S.
   
   Basically - Canadians continue to discover , like their American cousins - that the standard of medical care is lowered in both quality and availability as political considerations of income redistribution replace good old capitalistic self-interest.
   
   So the earnest and responsible citizens- see that their very health and life become held hostage to some leftist political ideology intended to support and enlist the profligate members of society. They see that they are forced to settle for some sub-standard, low-level system designed to provide the most "economically equal" healthcare. They WANT the best for themselves and have held dear their ability to work, save and plan for the best for their lives.
   
   The "gobmint" doctors and "gobmint" supported health supporters want the "gobmint" as deeply interfering in healthcare as they can possibly manage.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. ZyronEnder 01:53 AM 7/26/12

   "Overall... Canadians... were 5 percent less likely than Americans to die in the course of treatment."
   "Of the 38 studies the authors surveyed ... 14 favored Canada, five the U.S., and 19 yielded mixed results"
   
   For a system that is 89% more costly per capita than the Canadian system, I would have expected the US system to generate an obviously better value for money. Even if the health outcomes between the two systems was a wash, the 89% difference in price tag is quite a pill to have to swallow in the name of "good old capitalistic self-interest".
   
   I find it amazing that people are able to justify spending that much extra money in the name of ideology.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this