This entry was posted on Monday, May 7th, 2007 at 12:51 pm and is filed under Book Reviews, Health Alert. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
.funkyblue { color:#0000AF; }
One of the most fascinating books I have ever read in health economics is The Painful Prescription, an analysis of rationing in the British National Health Service (NHS) by Henry Aaron and Bill Schwartz. The Brookings Institution has now published an update, Can We Say No?, and it's every bit as rewarding as the original.
Britain spends less than half of what the U.S. spends on health care on a per capita basis. (The British also get less. For more than a half century, the NHS has promised health care free of charge to all its citizens. Yet upward of a million people are on waiting lists for care. Unable to get what they need from the public system, many pay out of pocket in the private sector, which provides one out of every five surgeries and almost one-third of all hip operations. Although equality of access to care has always been an overriding goal, gaps in mortality rates among British social classes have been widening over the past three decades.
Although British politicians for years described the NHS as "the envy of the world," Aaron, Schwartz and coauthor Melissa Cox show that the British are routinely denied services Americans take for granted. For example:
Overall, to achieve a level of care comparable to US standards; Britain would have to increase its level of spending by one-third, according to the authors.
The one thing missing from the book was also missing in the original - a "public choice" explanation of how rationing choices in Britain flow logically from the politics of medicine. I tried to fill that gap in a book I wrote almost 30 years ago. For the most recent version, see Lives at Risk, the book I wrote with Gerry Musgrave and Devon Herrick.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Again, solid insight into one of the knee-jerk poster-children a lot of public health “professionals” will offer when attacking healthcare driven by market forces. Instead of addressing the gaps you highlight here, the typical response will of course be to downplay any quantified shortcomings of the NHS and revert back to the dogmatic mantra of anti-market. When can we ever finally move on and away from this failed model of clamoring for an American NHS, and start building practical solutions based on the existing system? I gurantee that such realistic direction will not be heard coming out of most public health policy groups. There are myriad intrinsic shortcomings in rationing that can not be explained away, unfortunately most of these drawbacks will be hidden under the cover of politicized approaches to healthcare.
May 14th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Thank you John. I love your thinking, and am so happy to be on your list.