International comparison of various national health systems (including the NHS)

It seems at times that it is taken for granted that our NHS performs poorly and is in urgent need of reform. The tactics of the NHS's enemies are pretty transparent: find some lapse (exaggerate this if necessary – regrettably not always needed!), and give it wide publicity. Often the intention is to imply such lapses are typical of the NHS and indicate the need for radical reform. And under the current government (and often, sadly, the last Labour government) the assumption is that movement to an American-style privatised system is required.

The remarkable thing is how infrequently detailed comparisons between the NHS and the proposed alternatives are cited. The cynic in me suspects that that's because comparisons fail to show the performance of the NHS in a poor light.

As it happens a recent survey by the The Commonwealth Fund, an American private foundation, ranks the UK's NHS FIRST in the 11 nations surveyed! And the US comes last!

The NHS comes first for efficiency (perhaps not surprisingly to some of us) and first for “patient-centered care”. So much for the argument that our dirigist, top down, statist, monopolistic, clunky, socialistic system can't deliver!

The one factor in which the UK does poorly (“healthy lives”) reflects the ability of the society in general to support and promote public health. On this factor the US does even worse. Readers may recall that Wilkinson and Pickett's The Spirit Level showed that high income inequality is related to unhealthy populations, and, of course, the US and the UK have much higher income inequality than other developed nations.

So the next time someone makes an argument that assumes the NHS is rubbish, you can quote this study. 

The URL for the complete report is http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror.

Roger Oliver (26/7/2014)