WORLD> Europe
|
WORLD> Europe
|
|
Europe's free, state-run health care has drawbacks
(Agencies)
Updated: 2009-07-05 13:50 "There is nothing inherently different about cancer in the US and Britain to explain why more people are dying here," said Dr. Karol Sikora, of Cancer Partners UK. The US already spends the most worldwide on health care. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the US spent $7,290 per person in 2007, while Britain spent $2,992 and France spent $3,601. Still, experts say that before committing the US to footing the bill for universal health care, Obama should consider it has cost Europe.
In 1996, France introduced targets for health insurance spending. But a decade later, the deficit had doubled to 49 billion euros ($69 billion). "I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system. Similar scenarios have been unfolding in the Netherlands and Switzerland, where everyone must buy health insurance. "The minute you make health insurance mandatory, people start overusing it," said Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon and research director at Switzerland's Institut Constant de Rebecque. "If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium." Cost-cutting has also hit Switzerland. The numbers of beds have dropped, hospitals have merged, and specialist care has become harder to find. A 2007 survey found that in some hospitals in Geneva and Lausanne, the rates of medical mistakes had jumped by up to 40 percent. Long ranked among the world's top four health systems, Switzerland dropped to 8th place in a Europe-wide survey last year. Government influence in health care may also stifle innovation, other experts warn. Bureaucracies are slow to adopt new medical technologies. In Britain and Germany, even after new drugs are approved, access to them is complicated because independent agencies must decide if they are worth buying. When the breast cancer drug Herceptin was proven to be effective in 1998, it was available almost immediately in the US But it took another four years for the UK to start buying it for British breast cancer patients. "Government control of health care is not a panacea," said Philip Stevens, of International Policy Network, a London think-tank. "The US health system is a bit of a mess, but based on what's happened in some countries in Europe, I'd be nervous about recommending more government involvement."
|
