Should We in the U. S. Adopt the Canadian Health Car System?

10439384_704375269692135_5875159823586262277_n

Some of the pundits of health care repeatedly point to the north and want the same system as the Canadians our neighbors. Should we all move to Canada to get the best healthcare? But what if the opposite happened? What if Canada moved here? Specifically, what if its healthcare system were to pack up, migrate southward, and rain its single-payer munificence over America, for a change?

To review, Canadian healthcare basically works like Medicare, but for everyone. Medical care is free, and it covers almost everything other than prescription drugs, glasses, and dental care. (Most people have supplementary insurance to cover those things). It keeps its drugs cheap by negotiating at a federal level with pharmaceutical companies.

The Commonwealth Fund released a ranking of 11 developed countries’ healthcare systems. The American one, the world’s most expensive, ranked dead last. It has been indicated that the U.S. scored poorly on managing administrative hassles for doctors and patients, avoiding emergency-room use, and reducing duplicative medical testing, among other things.

To be fair, the Canadian system didn’t fare much better, coming in 10th out of 11. Still, according to a new interactive released by the Commonwealth Fund and based on the earlier report, if Americans had Canada’s healthcare, we might see some surprising gains in our quality of life and reductions in our healthcare expenditures.

First, the good news: 5,400 fewer babies would die in infancy, and we’d save about $1.3 trillion dollars in healthcare spending.

What’s more, 57 million fewer people would go without medical care because of the cost. “Roughly 40 percent of both insured and uninsured U.S. respondents spent $1,000 or more out-of-pocket during the year on medical care, not counting premiums,” the report authors write. (Though, it’s worth noting that the data for the report was collected before the full implementation of Obamacare, which dramatically expanded health insurance coverage in the U.S.)

And, perhaps as a result, more than 50,000 preventable deaths would be avoided.

But it wouldn’t all be good news. Canada’s free system comes at the cost of greater wait times for some services. In 2010, the Commonwealth Fund found that 33 percent of Canadians waited six days or more to see a specialist, compared with 19 percent of Americans. And Canadians tend to wait longer for ER care than patients in other countries: One in 10 patients in a Canadian ER will wait eight hours or more, and the average wait time is four hours.

Long wait times in Canada have also been observed for basic diagnostic imaging technologies that Americans take for granted, which are crucial for determining the severity of a patient’s condition. In 2013, the average wait time for an MRI was over two months, while Canadians needing a CT scan waited for almost a month.

These wait times are not simply “minor inconveniences.” Patients experience physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and lost economic productivity while waiting for treatment. One recent estimate (2013) found that the value of time lost due to medical wait times in Canada amounted to approximately $1,200 per patient.

There is also considerable evidence indicating that excessive wait times lead to poorer health outcomes and in some cases, death. Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association recently noted, “delayed care often transforms an acute and potentially reversible illness or injury into a chronic, irreversible condition that involves permanent disability.”

New research also suggests that wait times for medically necessary procedures may be associated with increased mortality. A recent report concluded that between 25,456 and 63,090 Canadian women may have died as a result of increased wait times between 1993 and 2009. Large as this number is, it doesn’t even begin to quantify the possibility of increased disability, poorer quality of life, and mental stress as a result of protracted wait times.

On top of that, more people would visit the ER in general.

That last point could either be a positive or negative, depending on how you look at it. On one hand, having lots of ER patients is expensive and inefficient for hospitals, and Canadians might be headed to emergency departments because wait times for regular doctors are too long. But on the other hand, it’s free for patients—so, some might wonder, why not use it if it’s there?

A more detailed comparison would find that even though the Canadian system is often held up as a possible model for the U.S. The two countries’ health care systems are very different-Canada has a single-payer, mostly publicly-funded system, while the U.S. has a multi-payer, heavily private system, even with the Affordable Care Act/ACA, but the countries appear to be culturally similar, suggesting that it might be possible for the U.S. to adopt the Canadian system as I have reviewed previously.

Much of the appeal of the Canadian system is that it seems to do more for less. Canada provides universal access to health care for its citizens, while nearly one in five non-elderly Americans is uninsured. Canada spends far less of its GDP on health care (10.4 percent, versus 16 percent in the U.S.) yet performs better than the U.S. on two commonly cited health outcome measures, the infant mortality rate and life expectancy.

Untitled21

Also, a look at the trends in total health expenditure per capita in Canada as compared to other countries shows the huge difference between the U.S. and Canada.

Untitled22

In “Health Status, Health Care, and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S.,” (NBER Working Paper 13429) June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill take a closer look at the performance of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems. The authors examine whether the Canadian system delivers better health outcomes and distributes health resources more equitably than the U.S. system.

The authors begin by examining the evidence on health outcomes. They note that the infant mortality rate and life expectancy are affected by many factors other than the health care system. For example, low birth weight-a phenomenon known to be related to substance abuse and smoking-is more common in the U.S. For babies in the same birth weight range, infant mortality rates in the two countries are similar. In fact, if Canada had the same proportion of low birth weight babies as the U.S., the authors project that it would have a slightly higher infant mortality rate. Thus, the authors conclude that differences in infant mortality have more to do with differences in behavior than with the health care systems.

A similar argument may be made for life expectancy. The gap in life expectancy among young adults is mostly explained by the higher rate of mortality in the U.S. from accidents and homicides. At older ages much of the gap is due to a higher rate of heart disease-related mortality in the U.S. While this could be related to better treatment of heart disease in Canada, factors such as the U.S.’s higher obesity rate (33 percent of U.S. women are obese, vs. 19 percent in Canada) surely play a role.

To compare how the countries perform on other health outcome measures, the authors use the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health, a survey of about 9,000 residents of the two countries conducted in 2002-2003. The authors begin by comparing self-reported health status. While this measure is subjective and may be influenced by factors outside the health care system, it is widely used by researchers. They find that self-reported health status is similar in the two countries-if anything, more people report themselves to be in excellent health in the U.S.

Next, the authors examine three other outcome measures: an index of overall health, a depression index, and a pain indicator. Focusing on whites (to sidestep differences in the racial composition of the two populations and the problem of racial disparities in health outcomes), they find that the two countries score similarly on the overall health index and pain indicator, while the U.S. has a slightly higher incidence of depression.

The final health status measure examined is the incidence of chronic conditions like high blood pressure, heart disease, and asthma. These measures are less subjective, but also are known to be influenced by behavior and other factors outside of the health care system. The authors find that the incidence of these conditions is somewhat higher in the U.S. However, respondents with these conditions are some-what more likely to be treated in the U.S.-in the case of emphysema, the treatment rate is twenty percentage points higher in the U.S.

Turning their attention to the availability of health care resources, the authors examine the use of cancer screenings including mammograms and PAP smears (for women), PSA screenings (for men), and colonoscopies. They find that the use of these tests is more frequent in the U.S. – for example, 86 percent of U.S. women ages 40 to 69 have had a mammogram, compared to 73 percent of Canadian women. The U.S. also is endowed with many more MRI machines and CT scanners per capita. The authors find evidence of the possible effectiveness of higher levels of screening and equipment by examining mortality rates in both countries for five types of cancer that could be affected by early detection and treatment. Because the incidence of cancer may differ for reasons other than the health care system, they compare the ratio of the mortality rate to the incidence rate – a lower ratio corresponds to a lower death rate for those with the disease. They find that the ratio is lower in the U.S. for all types of cancer except cervical cancer, suggesting that the U.S. health care system is generally more successful in the detection and treatment of cancer.

The authors also examine wait times, which are often cited as a problem in Canada. Though comparative information is limited, available data indicate much longer waits in Canada than in the U.S. to consult a specialist and to have non-emergency surgery like knee re-placements. The authors can also draw some inferences from a question about unmet medical needs. While the incidence of unmet needs is slightly lower in Canada (11 percent, vs. 14 percent in the U.S.), it is interesting to note that waiting time is cited as the reason by over half of Canadians who report unmet needs. By contrast, cost is cited as the reason by over half of Americans. The importance of long waits in Canada was recently highlighted by the Chaoulli case in Quebec, which successfully challenged the government ban on private provision of medical services covered by the Canadian system. Private services are expected to alleviate shortage of facilities under the system and reduce wait times. Cases are being brought in other provinces.

In the final section of their paper, the authors consider several measures of the success of the two health care systems. The first and perhaps simplest measure is the level of satisfaction reported by patients. Americans are more likely to report that they are fully satisfied with the health services they have received and to rank the quality of care as excellent.

Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S.

The authors conclude that while it is commonly supposed that a single-payer, publicly-funded system would deliver better health out-comes and distribute health resources more fairly than a multi-payer system with a large private component, their study does not provide support for this view. They suggest that further comparisons of the U.S. and Canadian health care systems would be useful, for example to explore whether the higher expenditures in the U.S. yield benefits that are worth their cost.

As Americans struggle with determining the next steps for health care reform, especially after this week’s Supreme Court decision, whether that means continuing to tweak the ACA or “repealing and replacing it,” they should keep in mind that the success of any reform depends in part on the degree to which facts dominate fiction and ideology. Discussion of the Canadian model is worthy of inclusion in such a debate, but more in terms of “what to avoid” than as a model for reform. The reality of Canadian health care is that it is comparatively expensive and imposes enormous costs on Canadians in the form of waiting for services, and limited access to physicians and medical technology. This isn’t something any country should consider replicating.

Next week I wanted to review our options now that the Supreme Court has made their latest decision regarding the ACA and subsidies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s