Cancer comparison statistics do indeed exist
In an Aug. 16 op-ed article, Dr. William Bezdek questions the statistics quoted by Congressman Kevin McCarthy comparing cancer survival rates between the U.S. and U.K. Bezdek wondered whether McCarthy's claims might even approach "outright unthinking propaganda" given the fact that "the numbers (for U.K. and U.S. cancer rates) are not totally comparable."
Another letter-writer also raised questions about these statistics last week. I thought I will take a chance on answering these questions since I also quoted the statistics in my article on Aug. 2.
Those statistics have come from several sources, including a widely publicized article in Lancet Oncology (written by Arduino Verdecchia, Ph.D. , et al, September 2007). His analysis from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance and Promotion in Rome, Italy was based on the most recent data involving about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2002 (a study known as Eurocare-4).
The age-adjusted five-year survival rate for all cancers combined was 47.3 percent for men and 55.8 percent for women. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.
Furthermore, the U.K. statistics were the worst when compared to other Western European countries, and came close to Eastern European countries even though those countries spent only one-third as much on health care.
These rates are significantly lower than the estimates of 66.3 percent for men and 62.9 percent for women from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, or SEER program. According to former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, writing for the National Center for Policy Analysis (Oct. 11, 2007), "These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage."
Scott Atlas of the Hoover Institution recently named "Ten reasons why America's health care system is in better condition than you might suppose," further analysis and comparison with the Canadian system. Further, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Ann Doig, recently stated that the "Canadian health system is "imploding." Canadian provincial governments have been contracting with hospitals in U.S. border states like Henry Ford in Michigan and Mayo in Minnesota to provide care to Canadian citizens because of access problems in that country.
Karol Sikora, medical director of the independent sector cancer services provider CancerPartnersUK and a long-term critic of the government plan, says that bureaucracy has gotten in the way of good intentions, with armies of administrators recruited to try to ensure hospitals hit their "waiting time" targets. "The bottom line is that there has been no striking improvement," he writes.
"The difference in survival ... still seems to be greatest for common tumors such as breast, lung, and colon and prostate. Relatively rare cancers requiring complex radiotherapy and chemotherapy have always had excellent outcomes, suggesting that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with U.K. oncology (cancer treatment) skills. The diagnosis has to be a whole system fault ... with serial delays, poor access and serious under-capacity."
One final note: The number "47 million uninsured" has been widely quoted and has also been widely debunked. All said and done, there are about 10 million to 12 million uninsured that really need a helping hand from the society. I see no reason to turn the best health care system in the world upside down to help less than 4 percent of the population.
Dr. Girish Patel is founder and director of Truxtun Radiology Medical Group.
