US spend massive and massive about of money on cancer research compared to Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan?

[nec209]

 

If you look this in China yuan cancer treatment cost it is yuan 21,000 for bladder cancer and yuan 39,527 for lung cancer and yuan 33,376 for stomach cancer.

That is yuan 21,000 is $2,863.95 and yuan 39,527 is $5,390.64 and yuan 33,376 is $4,551.77.

So if you covert much cheaper in US dollars and the most expensive lung cancer.

 

Average costs for cancer treatments in public hospitals in China in 2021, by type of cancer 

 

 

So if you look at that in China they not making much money of cancer treatment. Where in the US it like three times of buying car or more.

 

[CharonY]

17 minutes ago, LuckyR said:

The UK is an instructive model of the difference between private pay and public pay Healthcare. One can easily Google "wait time for joint replacement in UK" and learn the difference between the NHS and private pay. 

 

Basically there's no free lunch, you get what you pay for. 

It is not that easy, though. For example, Denmark has some of lowest wait for hip replacements and it is a single-payer system. Canada and UK are just below OECD17 average and Norway with Australia, with a mixed model have longer wait times.

For the US I have seen varying times (some median values exceed OECD averages, but I have not looked in detail at their data collection), plus the fact that folks not covered by insurance likely won't get one.

[LuckyR]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

It is not that easy, though. For example, Denmark has some of lowest wait for hip replacements and it is a single-payer system. Canada and UK are just below OECD17 average and Norway with Australia, with a mixed model have longer wait times.

For the US I have seen varying times (some median values exceed OECD averages, but I have not looked in detail at their data collection), plus the fact that folks not covered by insurance likely won't get one.

Of course Denmark has lower wait times than the NHS. It has higher income and especially capital gains tax rates and a nominal Defense dept budget. It would be criminal if it didn't. You get what you pay for. It's not magic. 

 

That's why the UK is so instructive, private pay and the NHS are within the same economic system (unlike a Denmark/UK comparo). 

Edited 13 hours ago by LuckyR

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, LuckyR said:

You get what you pay for.

*offer not available in the US

1 hour ago, nec209 said:

If you look this

Can you provide a link to where you got these infographs?

Also you should factor in the cost of living. 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Of course Denmark has lower wait times than the NHS. It has higher income and especially capital gains tax rates and a nominal Defense dept budget. It would be criminal if it didn't. You get what you pay for. It's not magic. 

 

That's why the UK is so instructive, private pay and the NHS are within the same economic system (unlike a Denmark/UK comparo). 

You can make that for any other comparison. IIRC private insurance is a top up from the regular insurance and is a tiny fraction. I.e. it is not just the additional funds, but because the public system takes care of much of the basics.

Also, the per capita expenditure for health in Denmark is lower than Norway, but as mentioned, has shorter wait times. Again, the issue is somewhat complicated and generally the US is the easiest to identify issues, as it has the largest discrepancy between cost vs outcome. Obviously, investment plays a role, but also how the system is set up.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, nec209 said:

 

If you look this in China yuan cancer treatment cost it is yuan 21,000 for bladder cancer and yuan 39,527 for lung cancer and yuan 33,376 for stomach cancer.

That is yuan 21,000 is $2,863.95 and yuan 39,527 is $5,390.64 and yuan 33,376 is $4,551.77.

So if you covert much cheaper in US dollars and the most expensive lung cancer.

 

 

Average costs for cancer treatments in public hospitals in China in 2021, by type of cancer 

 

 

So if you look at that in China they not making much money of cancer treatment. Where in the US it like three times of buying car or more.

Direct comparisons are not really meaningful and comment about making money in health care often does not make a lot of sense. For example, is health care in China a for-profit system? Or does it aim to be revenue neutral? Are there mixed elements (e.g. private hospitals vs public hospitals)? What is the difference in salaries? What is the outcome? I.e., there are many factors to consider and especially if a health care system is designed to cover cost, rather than generate profits, you cannot really apply the idea of profit (i.e., making money) to the equation.

 

[LuckyR]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

*offer not available in the US

So in the US those who have (higher premium) "Cadillac" health plan coverage don't get faster, better healthcare than Medicaid? 

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

You can make that for any other comparison. IIRC private insurance is a top up from the regular insurance and is a tiny fraction. I.e. it is not just the additional funds, but because the public system takes care of much of the basics.

Also, the per capita expenditure for health in Denmark is lower than Norway, but as mentioned, has shorter wait times. Again, the issue is somewhat complicated and generally the US is the easiest to identify issues, as it has the largest discrepancy between cost vs outcome. Obviously, investment plays a role, but also how the system is set up.

We are in total agreement that when comparing different country's health systems, that how they're set up plays an important role. 

And I have heard nothing that discounts my assertion that all else being equal, that investing more resources leads to better care. 

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, LuckyR said:

So in the US those who have (higher premium) "Cadillac" health plan coverage don't get faster, better healthcare than Medicaid? 

I’m not sure how you make the leap to get to this from what I said.

I simply meant that the US pays the most for healthcare but does not have the best healthcare ( measured by life expectancy at birth, for example), by a fair margin. i.e. overall, they are not getting what they pay for.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, LuckyR said:

So in the US those who have (higher premium) "Cadillac" health plan coverage don't get faster, better healthcare than Medicaid? 

No, not really. They may have to pay less out of pocket or something similar, but doctors do not look at insurance as they provide health care. Based on feedback today from both a doctor and a hospital administrator, doctors do not modify the way they treat a patient based on insurance (obviously exceptions may occur). In an OR the overall outcome may be worse for those without insurance (less follow-up, prescription issues, etc) but doctors do not, say, skip an x-ray for a patient without insurance, and administrators are not looking over the shoulders of doctors.

I have been on Medicare, Medicaid and  private insurance here in the US. I kept the same doctors and used the same hospitals as I transitioned through all three. My care was exactly the same in all cases. The only differences were that for me Medicaid was the cheapest, followed by Medicare, then private insurance the most expensive.

[LuckyR]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m not sure how you make the leap to get to this from what I said.

I simply meant that the US pays the most for healthcare but does not have the best healthcare ( measured by life expectancy at birth, for example), by a fair margin. i.e. overall, they are not getting what they pay for.

You said that "you get what you pay for" doesn't apply to the US healthcare system. I showed that within the US system it does. However it turns out you were only referring to comparing what the US spends compared to what other countries spend. 

As it happens, if you took the patients that the US healthcare system has to treat (a cross section of Americans) and put them in, say Denmark's system, the cost of treating them would be more than what Denmark pays to treat Danes and their outcomes would be similar to US outcomes. Because it is an error to suppose that healthcare outcome differences in the West are due to heathcare "quality", rather they're due to what the patient brings to the table. Or to put it another way, Danes are, on average healthier up front, than the average American. Just one factoid to ponder: Denmark has less than half the obesity rate of the US.

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

No, not really. They may have to pay less out of pocket or something similar, but doctors do not look at insurance as they provide health care. Based on feedback today from both a doctor and a hospital administrator, doctors do not modify the way they treat a patient based on insurance (obviously exceptions may occur). In an OR the overall outcome may be worse for those without insurance (less follow-up, prescription issues, etc) but doctors do not, say, skip an x-ray for a patient without insurance, and administrators are not looking over the shoulders of doctors.

I have been on Medicare, Medicaid and  private insurance here in the US. I kept the same doctors and used the same hospitals as I transitioned through all three. My care was exactly the same in all cases. The only differences were that for me Medicaid was the cheapest, followed by Medicare, then private insurance the most expensive.

Several things.

First, I'm glad you personally have had great medical care across various insurance plans. Though your experience is anecdotal for the purposes of this thread.

Second, Medicare (generally for seniors) has a great reputation in the insurance world, thus I wasn't referring to that.

Medicaid (generally for low income folks) has many problems. Firstly, many docs don't accept it (as insurance) since it pays them sometimes below the cost of providing care. Second, the average denial rate of Medicaid managed care organizations is more than double that of Medicare.

Edited 1 hour ago by LuckyR