Bang for your buck? No such luck — not even close.
The United States health care system has finished dead last — yet again — in a comparison of first-world countries, despite vastly outspending those nations on health services, according to a new study released Monday.
Adding insult to injury, the Commonwealth Fund-issued study ranked the United Kingdom in first place in the rankings despite the fact that the U.K. spent just $3,182 per capita on health — the second-least amount of the 11 countries surveyed.
And Canada, which was just above the U.S. in the overall rankings, spent just $4,522 per person on health services.
In contrast, the U.S. spent $8,508 per person on health care, or 17.7 percent of the gross domestic product.
“The claim that the United States has ‘the best health care system in the world’ is clearly not true,” stated the Commonwealth Fund report.
“To reduce cost and improve outcomes, the U.S. must adopt and adapt lessons from effective health- care systems both at home and around the world,” said the report, which examined 80 separate indicators from the countries related to five overall areas of performance: health, quality, efficiency, access and equity.
The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation whose self-stated goals are promoting “a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality and greater efficiency.”
The study found that after the United Kingdom, the top-ranked health systems were those of Switzerland and Sweden, followed by Australia, a tie between Germany and the Netherlands, a tie between Norway and New Zealand, France took ninth place, with Canada and the U.S. bringing up the rear. The most recent report, in 2010, had looked at just seven countries. This year, France, Sweden, and Switzerland were added to the mix.
In each of the four prior versions of the report the fund issued since 2004 “the U.S. has been systematically in last place,” noted report co-author Karen Davis, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
But Davis said she expects that the ongoing implementation of the Obamacare, which is targeted at getting health coverage to tens of millions of people who lack insurance, could put an end to that dismal run.
“I think the Affordable Care Act is going to make a huge difference in U.S. performance,” she said.
Contributing to America’s failing grade this year was the fact that the country ranked dead last in all measures of cost-related access.
Many less-affluent U.S. residents experienced longer-than-average wait times in seeing doctors and in being able to afford those services in the first place. The U.S. was also last in rankings on infant mortality, and second-to-last in healthy life expectancy at age 60, the study found.
And America was ranked last in efficiency, as a result of excessive time and money spend on dealing with insurance administration, lack of communication between medical providers and duplicative tests.
Davis noted nearly 40 percent of Americans did not visit a doctor in the past year because it would cost them too much money, compared to less than 1 in 10 people who reported the same thing in the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden and Norway.
And 40 percent of U.S. adults said they sought treatment at an emergency room for conditions that could have been treated by a regular doctor if one had been available, the Commonwealth Fund report found. In contrast, just 16 percent of patients in the U.K. reported such a problem in access to a doctor.
Davis said that in recent years, the U.K. has made “huge progress” in reducing wait times for elective surgeries and visits with specialists, and is among the average or top half of performing countries in wait times.
She said the U.K.’s experience, as well as other countries with universal health coverage — which the U.S. doesn’t have — puts the lie to the argument that such systems will invariably lead to longer-than-acceptable wait times for treatment.
“Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in this study,” the report said. “There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable — however, the Netherlands, U.K. and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.”
“Basically, there’s no wait times in countries like Germany, so it’s not true that there’s a tradeoff,” Davis said. “Canada has long waits for specialists, but Canada and the U.S. have long waits just to get in to see your primary doctor.”
It wasn’t all bad news for the U.S. in terms of rankings.
America ranked in the middle overall for health care quality metrics. And the country came in third and fourth place for effective care and patient-center care, although it fell short in measures of safe or coordinated care.
And the report underscores the fact that even when America ranks high relative to most other countries in some metrics, it is doing so while spending a grossly disproportionate amount of money to do so.
“For all countries, responses indicate need for improvement,” the report said. “Yet, the other 10 countries spend considerably less on health care person person, and as a percent of gross domestic product than does the United States.”
“These findings indicate that, from the perspectives of both physicians and patients, the U.S. health care system could do much better in achieving value for the nation’s substantial investment in health.”
A year ago, in response to a Reddit thread titled "What is Obamacare and what exactly did it change," one user put together an exhaustive post that explains pretty much everything about Obamacare. While some of its answers are a little out-of-date, it is incredibly complete, and regularly links back to the original Obamacare legislation. For most Obamacare questions, it’s the first — and best — site.
The Well-Documented Complete Explainer
Unfortunately, for all its completeness, the Reddit explanation isn’t the most interesting read. If you want something a little more diverting, you may consider taking a peek at Obamacare: Explain It Like I’m Five. Basically, this cartoon explains Obamacare like a playground argument, a he said/she said battle between insurers and average people, with Obama running interference in the middle. As an added plus, the website also lists 24 bullet points covering most of the things that Obamacare will change.
Explain It Like I'm Five
If you want something a bit more scholarly, Obamacare Exchanges Open: The New Law Explained in Seven Easy Steps uses President Obama’s own words to explain several main points of the plan, answering questions about how it will affect health care costs, how it will impact small businesses, and the positive effect that it may have on family finances. And, for those who like bullet points, the White House has put together a list of their own.
Obamacare in Obama's Words
Speeches and bullet points and detailed explanations are all well and good, but if you’re one of those people who likes to get their weighty explanations with a spoonful of sugar, The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation’s new video, "The Youtoons Get Ready for Obamacare" does a great job of explaining most of the ins and outs of the new law. It’s hard to find a better ground-level understanding of how the new law will affect your life.
The Fun Video Approach
Health Insurance Exchanges Open Tuesday (and Not Much Will Happen)
Survey: Most Americans Against Defunding Obamacare
The 5 States Where Obamacare Costs the Most
More from DailyFinance
•Mind the Gap: Wide Swings in Medical Costs
•Diabetes: The $54 Billion Battleground
•Why That Medical Test Just Cost You 23 Times More